RICHARDSON v. SCHUBERT, No 3:14-cv-01027-ST. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20141231c13
Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2014
Summary: MARCO A. HERN NDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [40] on November 14, 2014, in which she recommends that this Court deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [28]. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any 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 Judg
Summary: MARCO A. HERN NDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [40] on November 14, 2014, in which she recommends that this Court deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [28]. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any 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..
More
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [40] on November 14, 2014, in which she recommends that this Court deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [28]. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any 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).
I have carefully considered Defendants' objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation [40]. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [28] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
