Oregon Laborers Employers Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Covington

Filing 27

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation 23 , DENIES as moot Plaintiffs' Motion 9 for Summary Judgment, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. Signed on 01/20/2012 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 3 page Order for full text. (bb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION OREGON LABORERS EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND, OREGON LABORERS EMPLOYERS PENSION TRUST FUND, OREGON & SOUTHERN IDAHO LABORERS-EMPLOYERS TRAINING TRUST FUND, OREGON LABORERS EMPLOYERS COOPERATION & EDUCATION TRUST, PREV AILING WAGE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION FUND, and CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DRUG FREE WORKPLACE PROGRAM TRUST, 03:11-CV-00026-PK ORDER Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY COVINGTON, Defendant. BROWN, Judge. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and 1 - ORDER Recommendation (#23) on October 13, 2011, in which he recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, deny all pending Motions as moot, and enter a judgment. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, 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). See also United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988). In their Objections, Plaintiffs reiterate the arguments contained in their Supplemental Memorandum Re: stated at oral argument. Jurisdiction and This Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs' Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation (#23), DENIES as moot Plaintiffs' Motion (#9) for 2 - ORDER Summary Judgment, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 20th day of January, 2012. /s/ Anna J. Brown ANNA J. BROWN United States District Judge 3 - ORDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?