From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rickles v. Taylor

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 13, 2006
No. 03-CV-908-JE (D. Or. Jun. 13, 2006)

Opinion

No. 03-CV-908-JE.

June 13, 2006

ROBERT RICKLES, Oregon State Penitentiary SID # 3300373, Salem, OR, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

KATHRYN COTTRELL, State of Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.


ORDER


Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation (#62) on April 25, 2006, in which he recommended this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#52). The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 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 United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). This Court 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 Jelderks's Findings and Recommendation (#62) and, accordingly, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#52).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rickles v. Taylor

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 13, 2006
No. 03-CV-908-JE (D. Or. Jun. 13, 2006)
Case details for

Rickles v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT RICKLES, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT TAYLOR, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jun 13, 2006

Citations

No. 03-CV-908-JE (D. Or. Jun. 13, 2006)