Brown v. Gray

Filing 8

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 4 . The Complaint 2 is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 7/26/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (plb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ANTHONY GORDON BROWN, No. 3:17-cv-00740-JR Plaintiff, v. RONALD GRAY, ORDER Defendant. HERNANDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation (#4) on May 23, 2017, in which she recommends that this Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo.1 United States v. 1 A copy of the Findings & Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff at the Clackamas County Jail, his then-address on record. On or about June 5, 2017, it was returned to the Court as undeliverable. ECF 6. Although it is the party's responsibility to keep his or her address current, Local Rule 83-10, at my request, the Clerk's Office tracked down Plaintiff's current address and re-sent the Findings & Recommendation to him at the Snake River Correctional Institution on June 9, 2017. That mail has not been returned. No objections since that date have been filed. 1 - ORDER Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings & Recommendation [4]. Accordingly, the Complaint [2] is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this day of , 2017. MARCO A. HERNANDEZ 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?