Gaston v. Harris County(Government) et al, No. 3:2012cv00023 - Document 10 (D. Or. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiffs request to consolidate this case with 3:12-cv-00063-ST 9 is DENIED. Plaintiffs request for relief from the service rule ( 9 is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion for extension of time and to file an amended complaint 9 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs request for appointment of pro bono counsel 3 is DENIED. Signed on 3/9/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KANAL V. GASTON, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY, et aI., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3: 12-CV-00023-PK OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION SIMON, District Judge. On January 23,2012, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#6) in the above-captioned case. Judge Papak recommended that Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed without prejudice (#2) and that Plaintiff should be allowed to file an amended complaint, if he desires, attempting to cure the deficiencies identified. Judge Papak also recommended that Plaintiffs motion for "protective/restraining order" (#5) be denied as moot. Neither party has filed objections, although Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension oftime in which to object (#9). In that same motion, Plaintiff also requests leave to file an amended complaint, to consolidate this case with case 3: 12-cv-00063-ST, and "for both paper and electronic filings and waiver to serve each defendant." I ADOPT Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#6) for the reasons stated therein. The complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff has sixty (60) days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies identified in Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation. The motion for a protective/restraining order (#5) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs request to consolidate this case with 3:12-cv-00063-ST (#9) is DENIED. Plaintiffs request for relief from the service rule (#9) is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion for extension of time and to file an amended complaint (#9) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs request for appointment of pro bono counsel (#3) is DENIED. Dated this 9th day of March, 2012. United States District Judge OPINION & ORDER - Page 2

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.