Holdner v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, No. 3:2009cv00979 - Document 24 (D. Or. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Petitioner timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation. I have, therefore, given those portions of the Findings and Recommendation a de novo review. I agree with Magistrate Judge Acosta's analysis and conclusion. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (doc.14), and GRANT the State of Oregon's motion to dismiss the complaint (doc.3), with leave to refile. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 12/23/09 by Judge James A. Redden. (pvh)

Download PDF
FIl&09 lEe 2310:44Usoc~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON Wll..LIAM F. HOLDNE~ CV 09-979-AC Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. REDDEN, Judge: On November 12,2009, Magistrate Judge John Acosta filed his Findings and Recommendation (doc. 14) that the court grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 3) for lack of subj ect matter jurisdiction, and enter an order ofjudgment dismissing Petitioner's complaint, without prejudice. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 54(d)(2)(D). The district court is not bound by the recommendations PAGE 1 - OPINION AND ORDER further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R Civ. P. 72(b). When either party timely objects to any portion of the magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C); Fed. R Civ. P. 72(b); McDonnell Douglas Com. v. Commodore Bus. Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). The district court is not, however, required to review the factual and legal conclusions to which the parties do not object. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapi~ 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation. I have, therefore, given those portions of the Findings and Recommendation a de novo review. I agree with Magistrate Judge Acosta's analysis and conclusion. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 14), and GRANT the State of Oregon's motion to dismiss the complaint (doc. 3), with leave to refile. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 1d.. day of December, 2009. ames A. Redden d States District Judge PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.