U.S. ex rel. Smith v. Smith, 2:14-cv-01982-SU. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20180918f60
Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued a Findings & Recommendation [75] on May 3, 2018, recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [59] be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs have timely filed objections [84] to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistra
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued a Findings & Recommendation [75] on May 3, 2018, recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [59] be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs have timely filed objections [84] to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrat..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued a Findings & Recommendation [75] on May 3, 2018, recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [59] be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs have timely filed objections [84] to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 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); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court carefully considered Plaintiffs' objections and concludes there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings & Recommendation [75], and therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [59] is granted in part and denied in part consistent with Magistrate Judge Sullivan's recommendations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
