Fairbank v. Underwood et al

Filing 30

ORDER: The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation 27 . Accordingly, Defendants' request for judicial notice 7 is granted, Defendants' motion to dismiss 2 is granted in part and denied in part, Defendants' motion for sanctions 10 is denied, and Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's sur-reply 23 is granted. See 2-page order attached. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ADI FAIRBANK,

No. 3:13-cv-00397-HU
Plaintiff,

v.
JAMES A. UNDERWOOD and EDDIE
MEDINA,
Defendants.

Adi Fairbank
5023 SE Kelly Street
Porland, OR 97206
Pro Se Plaintiff
Frank H. Lagesen
Shane P. Swilley
Cosgrave Vergeer Kester, LLP
888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Attorney for Defendants

1 - ORDER

ORDER

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation (#27) on November 12,
2013, in which he recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ request for judicial notice (#7),
grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss (#2), deny Defendants’ motion for
sanctions (#10), and grant Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s sur-reply (#23). The matter is
now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation were
timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt,
840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate
Judge’s report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de
novo, I find no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Hubel’s Findings and Recommendation (#27).
Accordingly, Defendants’ request for judicial notice (#7) is granted, Defendants’ motion to
dismiss (#2) is granted in part and denied in part, Defendants’ motion for sanctions (#10) is
denied, and Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s sur-reply (#23) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

day of December, 2013.

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge
2 - ORDER