Opinion
No. 06-CV-619-AS.
October 20, 2006
FREDDIE J. GRIMES S.R.C.I. SID #8371094 Ontario, OR, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
HARDY MYERS Attorney General JACQUELINE SADKER Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Salem, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
On August 22, 2006, Magistrate Judge Donald Ashmanskas issued an Order (#18) denying Plaintiff Freddie J. Grimes's "Ordering Motion to `5' Counts of Actual Fraud and `5' Counts of Fraud" (#9) and Plaintiff's Motion for Investigative Grand Jury (#16). On September 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Appeal Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Fraud Filed on Defendants and Motion for Investigative Grand Jury" (#24), which the Court construes as Objections to the Order denying Plaintiff's Motions. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
When a party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's nondispositive Order, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
This Court has carefully considered the Objections of Plaintiff and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Order. This Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error.
CONCLUSION
The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's Order (#18) denying Plaintiff's "Ordering Motion to `5' Counts of Actual Fraud and `5' Counts of Fraud" (#9) and Plaintiff's Motion for Investigative Grand Jury (#16).Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's "Motion to Appeal Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Fraud Filed on Defendants and Motion for Investigative Grand Jury" (#24).
IT IS SO ORDERED.