McKenzie v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al

Filing 48

ORDER: Adopting Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation 39 ; Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 23 . Signed on 3/24/2016 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Copy mailed to plaintiff) (cp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
RENEE SHEREEN MCKENZIE,
2:14-cv-00316-TC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No.
39), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly,
I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and
conclude the report is correct.
1 –ORDER

Plaintiff argues Judge Coffin merely accepted defendants’ version of events. I disagree.
As to the material facts at issue, there are no disputes. Plaintiff also argues Judge Coffin did not
address her claims against the officers in their individual capacities. I disagree. Judge Coffin
stated, “To the extent they are sued in their official capacities, the individual defendants are also
absolutely immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.” F&R, 4. The next four pages of
the F&R, however, including the discussion on qualified immunity, explain why plaintiff’s
claims also fail against the officers in their individual capacities.
Magistrate Judge Coffin’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 39) is adopted in
full. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#23) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 24th day of March, 2016.

_____/s/ Michael J. McShane_____
Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge

2 –ORDER