Sharp v. Callahan et al
Filing
49
ORDER: Adopting Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation 45 filed November 21, 2012, in its entirety. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 10 , 27 and 28 are Granted. Plaintiff's pro bono counsel's request for termination of appointment 41 is Granted. This proceeding is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed on 12/11/12 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (cp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
The Estate of MARJORY D. SHARP,
by and through her Personal
Representative, JEFFERY SHARP,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 6:12-cv-0605-TC
v.
CAROL CALLAHAN, OREGON CASCADES
WEST COUNCIL of GOVERNMENTS,
SAMARITAN HEALTH SERVICES,
INDEPENDENCE HEALTH and
REHABILITATION CENTER,
ORDER
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and
Recommendation on November 21, 2012, in the above entitled
case.
The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636 (b) (1) (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b).
When either party
objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and
1
- ORDER
Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo
determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's
report.
See 28 U.S.C.
§
636(b) (1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Business Machines, 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 November 21, 2012,
in its entirety.
#28) are GRANTED.
Defendants' motions to dismiss (#10, #27,
Plaintiff's pro bono counsel's request for
termination of appointment (#41) is GRANTED.
This proceeding is dismissed.
The clerk of court is
directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
I
I
J
2
- ORDER
II
day of December, 2012.
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?