Patterson
v.
Aging Disability Services

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States District Court, D. OregonJun 16, 2004
CV 04-329-JE. (D. Or. Jun. 16, 2004)

CV 04-329-JE.

June 16, 2004

BRIAN PATTERSON, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff, Pro Se.

AGING AND DISABILITY SERVICES, Portland, OR, for Defendant.


ORDER


Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation (#6) on March 19, 2004, in which he recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In response, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Order Response: For Court Jurisdiction," which the Court has construed as a timely objection to the Findings and Recommendation. 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 (#6) and, accordingly, DISMISSES the Plaintiff's action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.