Hartfield v. Oregon State Bar et al

Filing 12

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 5 . Signed on 2/16/16 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jlr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
SEAN L. HARTFIELD,

No. 3:16-cv-00068-ST

Plaintiff,
v.
OREGON STATE BAR, and Unknown
Individuals (J. Does Nos. 1-10),

ORDER

Defendants.
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings & Recommendation (#5) on January 15,
2016, in which she recommends the Court dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation.
The matter is now before me 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 &
Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the

1 - ORDER

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. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify
the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de
novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation [5], and
therefore, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

day of

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge

2 - ORDER

, 2016.