From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. State

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 13, 2006
04-CV-980-AS (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2006)

Opinion

04-CV-980-AS.

March 13, 2006

MICHAEL B. WALKER, Lakeside, OR, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General, LYNNE D. RENNICK, Assistant Attorney General, Eugene, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas issued Findings and Recommendation (#45) on December 7, 2005, in which he recommended the Court grant Defendants' Unenumerated 12(b) Motion to Dismiss (#17) and dismiss this matter without prejudice. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). This Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's Findings and Recommendation (#45) and, accordingly, GRANTS Defendants' Unenumerated 12(b) Motion to Dismiss (#17) and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice. The Court DENIES any remaining motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Walker v. State

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 13, 2006
04-CV-980-AS (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2006)
Case details for

Walker v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL B. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Mar 13, 2006

Citations

04-CV-980-AS (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2006)