Moye v. Esco Corporation et al

Filing 42

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation 36 and, accordingly, GRANTS the Motion 15 to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendants Kaiser and Dr. Davis; DENIES Plaintiff's Motion [3 3] to Federal Question Jurisdiction; FINDS Plaintiff has failed to respond sufficiently to the Court's Order to Show Cause issued April 8, 2015; FINDS Plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies set out in the Findingsand Recommendation; and DISMISSES this matter in its entirety with prejudice. Signed on 09/03/2015 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 3 page Order for full text. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

3:14-cv-01849-PK

BRANDON MOYE, SR.,

ORDER

Plaintiff,

v.
ESCO CORPORATION, KAISER NW
PERMANENTE EMPLOYMENT
DEPARTMENT, and DR. ROBERT
DAVIS,
Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and
Recommendation (#36) on June 30, 2015, in which he recommends the
Court grant the Motion (#15) to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
filed by Defendants Kaiser and Dr. Davis, deny Plaintiff's Motion
(#33) to Federal Question Jurisdiction,

1

1

find Plaintiff has

Although Judge Papak did not expressly deny Plaintiff's
Motion (#33) to Federal Question Jurisdiction, the Court notes it
is, in effect, Plaintiff's response to the Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendants Kaiser and Dr. Davis and the Court's Order to
Show Cause.
Accordingly, Judge Papak's recommendation to grant
Defendant's Motion is, in effect, a recommendation to deny
Plaintiff's Motion (#33).
1 - ORDER

failed to respond sufficiently to the Court's Order (#31) to Show
Cause as to why those claims that relate to ESCO Corporation
should not be dismissed, and dismiss this matter in its entirety
with prejudice.

Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation.

~he

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)(l).

See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane).
In his Objections, Plaintiff reiterates the arguments
contained in his Motion to Federal Question Jurisdiction and
Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

This

Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's 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
2 - ORDER

Recommendation (#36) and, accordingly, GRANTS the Motion (#15) to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendants Kaiser and
Dr. Davis; DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (#33) to Federal Question
Jurisdiction; FINDS Plaintiff has failed to respond sufficiently
to the Court's Order to Show Cause issued April 8, 2015; FINDS
Plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies set out in the Findings
and Recommendation; and DISMISSES this matter in its entirety
with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of September, 2015.

United States District Judge

3 - ORDER