Hall et al v. Oregon Department of Corrections

Filing 15

ORDER: Adopting Report and Recommendation 11 ; Denying as Moot Motion for Appointment of Counsel 4 ; Denying as Moot Motion 8 . Ordered & Signed on 3/26/12 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (kf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ROGER D. HALL,
No. 2:12-cv-275-CL
Plainti

v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,

ORDER

Defendant.

PANNER, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and
Recommendation, and
U.S.C.

§

matter is now before this court.

636(b) (1) (B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

When

See 28
party

objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination
of that portion of the magistrate judge's report.
1 - ORDER

28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.,
Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiff has

filed objections, so I have reviewed this matter de novo.
I agree with Magistrate Judge Clar
only proper plaintiff.
plaintiff's claims.

that Roger Hall is

I also agree that claim preclusion bars

This court granted summary judgment based on

claim preclusion in a previous action where plaintiff also alleged
improper garnishment of his prison trust account.
Williams, No. 1:11-cv-493-CL.

Hall v.

l

intiff cannot avoid claim

preclusion by substituting a new defendant not named in the
previous action.
1425, 1427

See Golden v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n, 786 F.2d

8 (9th Cir. 1986).

intiff argues that the Report and Recommendation should be
str

ken because he did not consent to a magistrate judge.

I

This

I

t

I

t

f

court will not disfavor a party in any way for choosing not to
consent to a magistrate judge.

A party's decision not to consent,

however, does not result in the reassignment of a case from a
magistrate judge to a district judge.

I

Both district judges and

magistrate judges are included in the random assignment of new
civil case filings.

When a magistrate judge is randomly assigned

as the presiding judicial officer, the magistrate judge conducts
all pretrial proceedings in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.

LR 72-1 (practice tip).

When, as here, a party

does not consent to a magistrate judge, a district judge reviews
the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation on dispositive
pret

1 matters.

Lack of consent is not a basis

striking the

2 - ORDER

I
l

Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff's other objections also lack merit.
CONCLUSION
Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#11)
adopted.

PIa

ff's mot

(#4, #8) are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

'Z? day

of March, 2012.

OWEN M. PANNER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3 - ORDER