O.N. EQUITY SALES COMPANY v. ESTATE OF PENCE, 10-CV-1426-ST. (2011)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20110318819
Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2011
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM F. MARSH, District Judge. On February 4, 2011, Magistrate Judge Stewart filed a Findings and Recommendation that this matter should be dismissed pursuant to the court's inherent discretionary powers under 28 U.S.C. 2201(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination o
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM F. MARSH, District Judge. On February 4, 2011, Magistrate Judge Stewart filed a Findings and Recommendation that this matter should be dismissed pursuant to the court's inherent discretionary powers under 28 U.S.C. 2201(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of..
More
ORDER
MALCOLM F. MARSH, District Judge.
On February 4, 2011, Magistrate Judge Stewart filed a Findings and Recommendation that this matter should be dismissed pursuant to the court's inherent discretionary powers under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
Defendant has filed timely objections. After de novo review, I find no error in Judge Stewart's conclusion that "this case fits the bill of a classic `reactive declaratory action' that `federal courts should decline to entertain." Government Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1229, 1223 (9th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation (#17) of Magistrate Judge Stewart. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#7) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
