Dunlap v. City of Sandy, 3:17-cv-01749-YY. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20191010e53
Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation [45] on June 7, 2019, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation [45] on June 7, 2019, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United ..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation [45] on June 7, 2019, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court finds no error
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge You's Findings and Recommendation [45]. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss [38] is GRANTED and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
