Biggs v. City of St. Paul, 6:18-cv-0506-MK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20190924628
Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER ANN AIKEN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 56) recommending that defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted. (doc. 41) This case is now before me. 1 See 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 F&R, 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); M
Summary: ORDER ANN AIKEN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 56) recommending that defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted. (doc. 41) This case is now before me. 1 See 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 F&R, 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); Mc..
More
ORDER
ANN AIKEN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 56) recommending that defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted. (doc. 41) This case is now before me.1 See 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 F&R, 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 filed timely objections (doc. 59) to the F&R and defendant's have filed a timely response to those objections. (doc. 63) Thus, this Court reviews the F&R de novo.
Having reviewed the objections as well as the entire file of this case, the Court finds no error in Judge Kasubhai's F&R. Thus, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 56) in it's entirely. Accordingly, defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 41) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of this order.
It is so ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. This case is consolidated with Biggs v. City of St. Paul, et al. 6:18-cv-506-MK. While Judge Kasubhai addressed defendants Motions to Dismiss in both cases in a single order, this Court issues separate orders in each case regarding the F&R for clarity.
Source: Leagle
