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)

Download PDF
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?