Warren v. Mills et al

Filing 37

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 33 . Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 18 is allowed, and this proceeding is dismissed. Signed on 8/26/2011 by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
JAMES ROBERT WARREN,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. lO-842-TC

v.
ORDER
DON MILLS, et al.,
Defendants.
Magistrate

Judge

Thomas

M.

Recommendation on July 14, 2011,

Coffin

filed

and

in the above entitled case.

The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Findings

§

636(b) (1) (B)

When either party objects to any

portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the
district court must make a de novo determination of that portion
of the magistrate judge's report.
1

- ORDER

See 28 U.S.C.

§

636(b) (1);

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines

t

Inc.,

656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920
(1982) .
Plaintiff has timely filed objections.

I have, therefore,

given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.
I find no error.

Accordingly,

I ADOPT Magistrate Judge

Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed July 14, 2011, in its
entirety.

Defendants' motion to dismiss (#18) is allowed, and

this proceeding is dismissed.

The clerk of court will enter

judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED thi,

-4-

d"

°CJs.ITES DIS

2

- ORDER

, 2011.