United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
May 1, 2014
LEONARD JACOB BOYD, Plaintiff,
D. SCHMIDT, et al., Defendants.
OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc. , 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
Here, plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with-Magistrate Judge Clarke that plaintiff failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with a court order. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.
Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#116) is adopted. Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute (##88, 94), and for failure to comply with a court order (##100, 102) are granted. Defendants' motion to quash subpoena (#110) is granted, and plaintiff's motions for subpoena duces tecum. (##104, 106, 112, and 114) are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.