PERGANDE v. TRUMBO, 6:10-cv-6314-TC. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20120524d11
Visitors: 20
Filed: May 21, 2012
Latest Update: May 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL R. HOGAN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on March 6, 2012, 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 Cor
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL R. HOGAN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on March 6, 2012, 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..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL R. HOGAN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on March 6, 2012, 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, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.
I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed March 6, 2012, in its entirety. Defendants' motion to dismiss (#32) is allowed as to plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim and plaintiff's First Amendment claim based on the allegedly inadequate law library. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff's First Amendment claim based on the post card only policy.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
