HARTFIELD v. OREGON STATE BAR, 3:16-cv-00068-ST. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20160218d77
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2016
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings & Recommendation (#5) on January 15, 2016, in which she recommends the Court dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Re
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings & Recommendation (#5) on January 15, 2016, in which she recommends the Court dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Rec..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings & Recommendation (#5) on January 15, 2016, in which she recommends the Court dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 Plaintiff's 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 [5], and therefore, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
