Summary
finding in light ofPittman that a section 1981 claim cannot be stated against "state actors"
Summary of this case from Byrd v. California Superior Court, County of MarinOpinion
Civil Case No. 06-1082-AC.
June 12, 2008
Kevin J. Jacoby, Salem, Oregon, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, David L. Kramer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Xiomara Torres Mattson, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
The Honorable John Acosta, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on April 9, 2008. Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). This court has therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Acosta.
Defendants' Motion to Correct Record with Supplemental Affidavit of Bill Lafferty (#74) is denied as moot.
This court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Acosta dated April 9, 2008 in its entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#38) is granted. The claims of Mountain Forestry, Inc., Francisco Cisneros, Perez Reforestation, Inc., Jose Perez, Oregon Forestry, Inc., and Oligario Barajas are dismissed with prejudice.