United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
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, the parties object to the Report and Recommendation, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be granted, and that Plaintiffs are not entitled to a stay pending exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#26) is adopted. Defendant's motion to dismiss (#13) is granted and Plaintiffs' request for a stay (#14) is denied. ...