United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
May 6, 2014
C. GORDON DILLARD, Plaintiff,
THE STATE OF OREGON, 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 the Report and Recommendation that plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim for relief against any defendant. I also conclude.that allowing plaintiff to file a second amended complaint would be futile, so dismissal must be with prejudice.
Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#63) is adopted. Defendants' motions to dismiss (## 57, 58) are granted, and plaintiff's amended complaint (#56) is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.