Pringle v. State of Oregon et al

Filing 47

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation 38 . Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss 18 is GRANTED and this action is dismissed without prejudice. See 3-page order attached. Signed on 2/25/2014 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DAYTON PRINGLE, JR., pro se,
Mining Claims S & D 1 #154263;
S & D 2 #154262; S & D 3 #154261
Case No. 2:13-cv-00309-SU
Plaintiff,

v.
STATE OF OREGON, John Kitzhaber;
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Ellen Rosenblum;
DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS, Erik
Metz, OREGON PARKS & RECREATION,
Jan Houck; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE; UNITED STATES,
Attorney General, Eric Holder; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, Ken Salazar,
Brian Bair, Fisheries Biologist, TEAMS
Enterprise; Robert Nykamp, Archaeologist,
TEAMS Enterprise; Tim Holden, Wildlife
Biologist, Above & Beyond Ecosystems
Enterprise; THE FRESH WATER TRUST,
Peter Paquet, RBP, LLC; John and Jane Doe 1
to 999 to be named,
Defendants.

1 - ORDER

ORDER

Eugene Dayton Pringle, Jr
c/o P.O. Box 2831
White City, OR 97503
Pro se Plaintiff
Stephanie M. Parent
Jacqueline Sadker Kamins
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SPECIAL LITIGATION UNIT
1515 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 410
Portland, OR 97201
Attorneys for Defendants
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [38] on
December 23, 2013, recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss [18] be granted and that
this action be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendation, as here, 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 that these objections do
not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. I have also reviewed the
pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendation.
///

2 - ORDER

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation [38].
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [18] is GRANTED and this action is dismissed
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

day of ___________, 2014.

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER