Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reitz v. Adams

United States District Court, District of Oregon

March 23, 2015

ROBIN MARK REITZ, Plaintiff,
v.
MAYOR SAM ADAMS, GOVERNOR KITZHABER OF OREGON; PORTLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; STATE OF OREGON; and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants.

ORDER

ANNA J. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#75) on March 2, 2015, in which he recommends this Court deny Plaintiff’s First Motion (#38) for Default; deny Plaintiff’s Motion (#56) for Extension of Time; grant Defendants’ Motions (#43, #44) to Dismiss and dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (#24) with prejudice; and deny as moot Plaintiff’s Second Motion (#53) for Default. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 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).

In his Objections Plaintiff restates arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge and submits additional materials that do not state a claim on which relief can be granted or are not relevant to the issues before the Court.

This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s Objections and concludes Plaintiff’s Objections 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.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#75). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s First Motion (#38) for Default and Plaintiff’s Motion (#56) for Extension of Time. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions (#43, #44) to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (#24) with prejudice. Finally, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Second Motion (#53) for Default.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.