Richlick v. Patton
Richlick v. Patton
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOSEPH D. RICHLICK,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:20-cv-420-CL
v. ORDER DR. PATTON, D.O.,
Defendant. ___________________________
MCSHANE, Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 10), and the matter is now before this court. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc.,
656 F.2d 1309, 1313(9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude the report is correct. Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) is adopted. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 28th day of September, 2020. _______/s/ Michael J. McShane________ Michael McShane United States District Judge 1 –ORDER
Reference
- Status
- Unknown