Bossert v. The Oregon Department of Corrections et al, No. 3:2011cv03044 - Document 177 (D. Or. 2013)
Court Description: Opinion and Order: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation 169 . The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion 150 for Judgment on the Pleadings and DENIES as moot Defendants' alternative Motion 149 for Summary Judgment. Signed on 08/09/2013 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 3 page Opinion and Order. (bb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bossert v. The Oregon Department of Corrections et al Doc. 177 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON BRYAN BOSSERT, 3:11-cv-03044-AC Plaintiff, ORDER V. MAX WILLIAMS, MICHAEL F. GOWER, JANA RUSSELL, and RICHARD HARRIS, Defendants. BROWN, Judge. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#169) on June 3, 2013, in which he recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion (#150) for Judgment on the Pleadings, which he construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment, and that Defendants’ alternative Motion (#149) for Summary Judgment should be denied as moot. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). In his Objections Plaintiff reiterates the arguments contained in his Response (#157) to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which this Court also construes as a Motion for Summary Judgment. Together with his Objections, Plaintiff submits a document purporting to confirm an appointment for mental-health counseling. Objections (#173) at 4. Plaintiff apparently intends this document to be construed as evidence of his mental-health impairment. The document, however, is irrelevant because, as Plaintiff acknowledges, Defendants do not dispute the existence of Plaintiff’s mental-health issues. See Pl.'s Resp. to Mot. for J. on the Pleadings (#157) at 2. Having reviewed the record, Plaintiff's Objections, and Defendants' Response to the Objections, the Court does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. 2 - OPINION AND ORDER CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation (#169). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion (#150) for Judgment on the Pleadings (construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment) and DENIES as moot Defendants' alternative Motion (#149) for Summary Judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 9th day of August, 2013. /s/ Anna J. Brown ____________________________ ANNA J. BROWN United States District Judge 3 - 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.
