Swearingen v. Mnuchin, 1:19-cv-00586-CL. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20190923b07
Visitors: 25
Filed: Sep. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER ANN AIKEN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 15) recommending that plaintiff's Motion to Remand (dec. 9) be denied and that defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted. (doc. 8) This case is now before me. See 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 F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate
Summary: ORDER ANN AIKEN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 15) recommending that plaintiff's Motion to Remand (dec. 9) be denied and that defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted. (doc. 8) This case is now before me. See 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 F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate ..
More
ORDER
ANN AIKEN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 15) recommending that plaintiff's Motion to Remand (dec. 9) be denied and that defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted. (doc. 8) This case is now before me. See 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 F&R, 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 filed timely objections (doc. 19) to the F&R and defendant's have filed a timely response to those objections. (doc. 20) Thus, this Court reviews the F&R de novo.
Having reviewed the objections as well as the entire file of this case, the Court finds no error in Judge Clarke's F&R. Thus, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 15) in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (doe. 9) is DENIED, and defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 8) is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is dismissed, with prejudice.
It is so ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
