Warren v. Mills

Full title: JAMES ROBERT WARREN, Plaintiff, v. DON MILLS, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division

Date published: Aug 26, 2011

Civil No. 10-842-TC (D. Or. Aug. 26, 2011)

Opinion

Civil No. 10-842-TC.

August 26, 2011

ORDER

MICHAEL HOGAN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on July 14, 2011, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, givende novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed July 14, 2011, in its entirety. Defendants' motion to dismiss (#18) is allowed, and this proceeding is dismissed. The clerk of court will enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.