United States District Court, D. Oregon
ANN AIKEN, District Judge.
On June 26, 2014, Magistrate Judge Coffin issued his Findings and Recommendation in the above-captioned action and recommended that defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted and plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. The matter is now before me. See 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 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). Plaintiff filed timely objections; I have, therefore, given de novo review of Judge Coffin's opinion. I find no error.
Aside from the other reasons explained in Judge Coffin's sound decision, plaintiff fails to provide authority to allow this federal court to set aside or overrule a state or municipal court judgment, particularly when she failed to challenge those judgments or the writs of garnishment in those courts. Moreover, plaintiff fails to present any evidence to support her allegation that the underlying judgment was not entered against her; instead, plaintiff provides only conclusory statements unsupported by documents or sworn testimony. Therefore, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine mandates dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims, and I decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 26) filed June 26, 2014 is ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (docs. 17, 21) are ...