United States District Court, D. Oregon
August 6, 2014
MELVIN J. HOWARD, Plaintiff,
MAXIMUS, INC., d/b/a MAXIMUS, CANADA, INC., d/b/a THEMIS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING LTD.; STEVE KITCHER, in his individual capacity; and JOANNE PLATT, in her individual capacity, Defendants.
MELVIN J. HOWARD Fairview, OR, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
JOANNA T. PERINI-ABBOTT, ROBERT L. ALDISERT, Perkins Coie, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant Maximus, Inc.
ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation (F&R) (#42) on May 6, 2014, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendant Maximus, Inc.'s Motion (#36) to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
I. Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which Plaintiff Does Not Object
Plaintiff does not object to the portions of the Findings and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's "Piercing the Corporate Veil" claim. The Court, therefore, is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo as to these portions of the Findings and Recommendation. See Shiny Rock Min. Corp v. U.S., 825 F.2d 216, 218. (9th Cir. 1987). See also Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983).
Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error in these portions of the Findings and Recommendation.
II. Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which Plaintiff Objects
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)( en banc ); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988).
A. Plaintiff's First through Fifth Claims
Plaintiff appears to object to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge concludes Plaintiff's First through Fifth "Causes of Action" should be dismissed with prejudice and reiterates the arguments contained in his Opposition (#40) to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify these portions of the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation with respect to Plaintiff's First through Fifth Causes of Action.
B. Failure to Join a Necessary Party
In the Findings and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge also addresses Defendant's alternative argument that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed for failure to join required parties. The Magistrate Judge concludes "even if [Plaintiff] stated a viable claim, this case should be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(7)." F&R at 13. Although the Court need not address Defendant's alternative argument because the Court concludes Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed on other grounds as recommended by the Magistrate Judge, the Court does not find any error in ths portion of the F&R.
The Court ADOPTS that portion of Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#42) in which she recommends the Court GRANT Defendant Maximus Inc.'s Motion (#36) to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.