BLEDSAW v. KAMP (D.Or. 2004)

RAYMOND M. BLEDSAW, JR., by Raymond M. Bledsaw, Sr., his conservator, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERY D. KAMP, individually and in his capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Lakeview, Defendant.

Civil No. 03-3026-CO.United States District Court, D. Oregon.
May 10, 2004

ORDER
ANN AIKEN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Cooney filed his Findings and Recommendation on March 18, 2004 (doc. 28). The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo
determination of that portion of the Magistrate’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. CommodoreBusiness Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert.denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore,

Page 2

given the file of this case a de novo review. I ADOPT the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation (doc. 28) that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 10) is granted and this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.