Howard v. Maximus, Inc. et al
Filing
48
ORDER: The Court ADOPTS that portion of Magistrate Judge Stewarts Findings and Recommendation 42 in which she recommends the Court GRANT Defendant Maximus Inc.s Motion 36 to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice. Signed on 08/06/2014 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 5 page Order for full text. (bb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MELVIN J. HOWARD,
3:13-cv-01111-ST
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
MAXIMUS, INC., d/b/a MAXIMUS,
CANADA, INC., d/b/a THEMIS
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT &
CONSULTING LTD.; STEVE
KITCHER, in his individual
capacity; and JOANNE PLATT,
in her individual capacity,
Defendants.
MELVIN J. HOWARD
22751 N.E. Halsey St.
Suite 51
Fairview, OR 97024
(503) 317-409
Plaintiff, Pro Se
1 - ORDER
JOANNA T. PERINI-ABBOTT
ROBERT L. ALDISERT
Perkins Coie, LLP
1120 N.W. Couch Street
10th Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
(503) 727-2000
(503) 727-2056
Attorneys for Defendant
Maximus, Inc.
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) (#42) on May 6, 2014, in which she
recommends the Court grant Defendant Maximus, Inc.’s Motion (#36)
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff filed
timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
The matter
is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
I.
Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which
Plaintiff Does Not Object
Plaintiff does not object to the portions of the Findings
and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge dismisses with
prejudice Plaintiff’s “Piercing the Corporate Veil” claim.1
The
Court, therefore, is relieved of its obligation to review the
record de novo as to these portions of the Findings and
1
This is the Seventh Cause of Action in Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the First
Amended Complaint does not contain a “Sixth Cause of Action”.
2 - ORDER
Recommendation.
See Shiny Rock Min. Corp v. U.S., 825 F.2d 216,
218. (9th Cir. 1987).
See also Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., 700
F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983).
Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does
not find any error in these portions of the Findings and
Recommendation.
II.
Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which
Plaintiff Objects
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).
A.
Plaintiff’s First through Fifth Claims
Plaintiff appears to object to the Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge
concludes Plaintiff’s First through Fifth “Causes of Action”
should be dismissed with prejudice and reiterates the arguments
contained in his Opposition (#40) to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint.
This Court has carefully considered
Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis
to modify these portions of the Findings and Recommendation.
The
Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de
3 - ORDER
novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendation with respect to Plaintiff’s First
through Fifth Causes of Action.
B.
Failure to Join a Necessary Party
In the Findings and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge also
addresses Defendant’s alternative argument that Plaintiff’s
claims should be dismissed for failure to join required parties.
The Magistrate Judge concludes “even if [Plaintiff] stated a
viable claim, this case should be dismissed pursuant to FRCP
12(b)(7).”
F&R at 13.
Although the Court need not address
Defendant’s alternative argument because the Court concludes
Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed on other grounds as
recommended by the Magistrate Judge, the Court does not find any
error in ths portion of the F&R.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS that portion of Magistrate Judge Stewart’s
Findings and Recommendation (#42) in which she recommends the
Court GRANT Defendant Maximus Inc.’s Motion (#36) to Dismiss
4 - ORDER
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and DISMISSES this matter
with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of August, 2014.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
_____________________
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge
5 - 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?