Cardenas-Pulido v. Monk et al
OPINION & ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acostas F&R 77 , and therefore, Defendants motions to dismiss 59 , 60 are GRANTED and this case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 3/22/2018 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (joha)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CESAR CARDENAS PULIDO,
OPINION & ORDER
WALTER MONK, JOHN DOES 1 – 10,
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge John Acosta issued his Findings & Recommendation (“F&R”)  on
November 17, 2017, recommending that Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
with prejudice be granted. Plaintiff has timely filed objections  to the F&R. The matter is
now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
1 – ORDER
When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s F&R, 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); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court has carefully considered the objections and concludes there is no basis to
modify the F&R. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and
find no errors in the Magistrate Judge’s F&R.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s F&R , and therefore, Defendants’
motions to dismiss ,  are GRANTED and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this _______ day of ____________________, 2018.
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge
2 – 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?