IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

_ WILEY SHREVE SWEARINGEN, _... Gase No, 1:19-cv-00586-CL ORDER Plaintiff, V. STEVEN TERNER MNUCHIN, DAVID J. KAUTLER, CHERYL CARDERO, G.J. CARTER-LOUIS, UNITED STATES, Defendants. AIKEN, District Judge; Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 15) recommending that plaintiffs Motion to Remand (doc. 9) be denied and that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted. (doc. 8) This case is now before me. See

(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge’s report. See

(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

Doga |1_ ORDER

Business Machines, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1981), cert denied,

(1982). Plaintiff has filed timely objections (doc. 19) to the F&R and defendant’s have filed a timely response to those objections. (doc. 20) Thus, this Court reviews the F&R de novo. Having reviewed the objections as well as the entire file of this case, the Court finds no error in Judge Clarke’s F&R. Thus, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 15) in its entirety. Plaintiffs Motion for Remand (doc. 9) is DENIED, and defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 8) is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is dismissed, with prejudice. It is so ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2019. □□

Cualuhen Ann Aiken □ United States District Judge

DD... 9) NDNnTD