United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
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 ...