LEIGHTON v. THREE RIVERS SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1:12-cv-1275-CL. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20141113g63
Visitors: 14
Filed: Nov. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2014
Summary: ORDER OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc. , 656 F.2d 1309 , 1313
Summary: ORDER OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc. , 656 F.2d 1309 , 1313 ..
More
ORDER
OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
Here, Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that Plaintiff's motion to amend should be denied.
CONCLUSION
Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#54) is adopted. Plaintiff's motion to amend (#40) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
