Preuitt v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al

Filing 31

ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 29 . The Court Grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 22 and Dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's Sixth and Seventh Claims. Signed on 8/15/17 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON KELLY NATHAN PREUITT, Plaintiff, 3:16-cv-00835-PK ORDER v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an agency of the State of Oregon; COLETTE PETERS, individually; STEVE SHELTON, M.D., individually; HEIDI STEWARD, individually; JOHN DOES 1-10, individually, Defendants. BROWN, Judge. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#29) on July 21, 2017, in which he recommends this Court grant Defendants’ Motion (#22) for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Sixth and Seventh Claims; dismiss Plaintiff’s Sixth and Seventh Claims with prejudice; and, in light of the fact that all of Plaintiff’s claims have now been dismissed, dismiss this matter in its entirety. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 1 - ORDER Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See Dawson v. Marshall, See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#22). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion (#22) for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff’s Sixth and Seventh Claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 15th day of August, 2017. /s/ Anna J. Brown ANNA J. BROWN United States Senior 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?