Gaston v. Harris County(Government) et al

Filing 10

OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiffs request to consolidate this case with 3:12-cv-00063-ST 9 is DENIED. Plaintiffs request for relief from the service rule ( 9 is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion for extension of time and to file an amended complaint 9 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs request for appointment of pro bono counsel 3 is DENIED. Signed on 3/9/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

KANAL V. GASTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

HARRIS COUNTY, et aI.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3: 12-CV-00023-PK

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION

SIMON, District Judge.
On January 23,2012, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation
(#6) in the above-captioned case. Judge Papak recommended that Plaintiffs complaint should be
dismissed without prejudice (#2) and that Plaintiff should be allowed to file an amended
complaint, if he desires, attempting to cure the deficiencies identified. Judge Papak also
recommended that Plaintiffs motion for "protective/restraining order" (#5) be denied as moot.
Neither party has filed objections, although Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension oftime
in which to object (#9). In that same motion, Plaintiff also requests leave to file an amended
complaint, to consolidate this case with case 3: 12-cv-00063-ST, and "for both paper and
electronic filings and waiver to serve each defendant."

I ADOPT Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#6) for the reasons stated
therein. The complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff has sixty (60) days from the date of this order to
file an amended complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies identified in Judge Papak's
Findings and Recommendation. The motion for a protective/restraining order (#5) is DENIED as
moot.
Plaintiffs request to consolidate this case with 3:12-cv-00063-ST (#9) is DENIED.
Plaintiffs request for relief from the service rule (#9) is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion for
extension of time and to file an amended complaint (#9) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs request
for appointment of pro bono counsel (#3) is DENIED.

Dated this 9th day of March, 2012.

United States District Judge

OPINION & ORDER - Page 2