Johnson v. Peters

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PENDLETON DIVISION

WILLIE LEE JOHNSON, Case No. 2:17-cv-01872-MK ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

COLETTE S. PETERS; BRAD CAIN; ANTHONY JOHNSON; JONATHAN LO; CHARLES PALMER; JERRY MORDHORST,

Defendants, _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) (Doc. 125) recommending that defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 113) be granted and plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgement and for Order (Docs. 117, 120) should be denied. This 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 F&R, 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), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the F&R (Doc. 127). Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for an Order to Vacate or Set Aside the F&R (Doc. 128) which the

Court considers here as supplemental objections to the F&R. The Court also considers plaintiff’s Declaration filed on August 26, 2020 (Doc. 129) in reviewing the F&R. Thus, the Court reviews the F&R de novo. Having reviewed plaintiff’s briefing and the full record of this case, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s F&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the F&R (Doc. 125) in its entirety. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 113) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment and Order (Docs. 117

and 120) are DENIED. This action is dismissed. Any other motions are denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this _8_t_h_ day of September 2020.

___________/_s_/_A_n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n___________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge