United States District Court, D. Oregon
October 2, 2014
DWAYNE EDWARD ABRAHAM, Plaintiff,
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MAX WILLIAM, Director of ODOC; DAN JOHNSON, Superintendent of PCRI; STAN CZERNIAK, Assistant Director of ODOC; MS. BALLARD, Counselor at PRCI; DON WILLIAM, Program Service Manager, PRCI; GINGER MARTIN, Assistant Director of ODOC Transitional Services, Defendants.
ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#55) on August 13, 2014, in which he recommends the Court grant Defendants' Motion (#42) for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First and Second Claims and dismiss Plaintiff's Second Claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 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).
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 Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)( en banc ).
This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify 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.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#55) and, therefore, GRANTS Defendants' Motion (#42) for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First and Third Claims and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Second Claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.