Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

HALL v. WILLIAMS, 1:11-cv-0493-CL. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Oregon Number: infdco20120206711 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2012
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 has filed objections, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that claim preclusion bars plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#26) is adopted. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#16) is granted. Plaintiff's motion for stay (#24) is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer