From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wong v. Beebe

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jan 9, 2006
Civil No. 01-718-ST (D. Or. Jan. 9, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 01-718-ST.

January 9, 2006

Beth Ann Creighton, Zan E. Tewksbury, Thomas M. Steenson, STEENSON SCHUMANN TEWKSBURY CREIGHTON ROSE, P.C. Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Kenneth C. Bauman, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Portland, OR, R. Joseph Sher, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Alexandria, VA, Attorneys for Defendants.


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart filed Findings and Recommendation (#238) on November 17, 2005, 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).

Defendants have timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Stewart's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#238) dated November 17, 2005, in its entirety. Defendant Beebe's motion (#175) for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part as to the Second Claim (First Amendment) alleged by Wong insofar as it is based on Wong's inability to associate with her followers. In all other respects, the motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wong v. Beebe

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jan 9, 2006
Civil No. 01-718-ST (D. Or. Jan. 9, 2006)
Case details for

Wong v. Beebe

Case Details

Full title:KWAI FUN WONG and WU WEI TIEN TAO ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID V…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jan 9, 2006

Citations

Civil No. 01-718-ST (D. Or. Jan. 9, 2006)