IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

MICHAEL T. BROOKS, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

AGATE RESOURCES, INC., dba, 

Trillium Community Health Plan, 

Defendant. 

AIKEN, District Judge: 

No. 6:15-cv-000983-MK 

ORDER 

On March 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai issued his Findings 

and Recommendations ("F&R") (doc. 198) recommending that defendant's Motion to 

Dismiss (doc. 137) be granted and plaintiffs amended complaint (doc. 135) with 

prejudice. 22, 2019. This case is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(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 nova determination of that portion of the magistrate 

I -ORDER 
judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 

920 (1982). Plaintiff has filed timely objections1 (doc. 200), and defendant has filed a 

timely response to those objections (doc. 202). Thus, this Court reviews the F&R de 

novo. 

Having reviewed the objections and responses, F&R, as well as the entire file 

in this case, the Court finds no error in the thorough order of the Magistrate Judge. 

Thus, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 198) in its entirety. Accordingly, defendant's 

Motion to Dismiss (doc. 137) is GRANTED. 

Further, since submitting his objections to the F&R, plaintiff has also filed 

what is styled as a Motion for Mistrial and New Trial (doc. 203) pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. Pro 59. Importantly, there has been no jury or bench trial in this matter, nor 

has a final judgment been entered. Plaintiffs motion fails as matter of law and is 

accordingly DENIED. Plaintiffs request for a change of venue is also denied as 

jurisdiction is proper in the District of Oregon. 

In the motion for new trial, plaintiff continues to raise complaints about this 

case being assigned to a Magistrate Judge, and he requests that this Court vacate 

"all orders, motions and work done by Magistrate Judges." Pl.'s Mot for New Trial at 

29. Plaintiff argues that he never consented to have this case heard by a magistrate 

1 The Court does not consider plaintiffs second "response" (doc. 211) as it was untimely, 

and the Court did not grant plaintiff leave to file supplemental briefing beyond what is allowed in 

the Local Rules. 

2-0RDER 
judge, and it is true that full consent has not been given by the parties. The Court 

notes, however, that the District of Oregon's Local Rules "designates every 

Magistrate Judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) 

and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, without further designation or assignment." LR 72-1. The 

Court also randomly assigns newly filed civil cases to both Magistrate Judges and 

District Judges. See L.R. 16-l(a). Thus, in accord with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, magistrate 

judges may preside in cases and issue non-dispositive orders on pretrial matters, even 

when consent is not given. However, when dealing with dispositive motions in cases 

where consent has not been given, Magistrate Judges must issue a F&R for the 

District Court's consideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) An F&R is not a final order, and 

when objections are made by either party the district court must review the objected 

portions of the F&R under a de nova standard. 

These procedures have been followed in this case. This case was initially 

assigned to Magistrate Judge Coffin, and later Magistrate Judge Russo and finally 

Magistrate Judge Kasubhai. All magistrate judges have entered non-dispositive 

orders regarding pre-trial matters. Plaintiff was free to appeal those orders to the 

District Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which he did on two occasions. (docs. 

180 and 190). Further, when considering defendant's motion to dismiss, the 

Magistrate Judge issued a timely F&R, which is now before this Court. Thus, because 

this routine practice is authorized under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636, 

plaintiffs request that this Court strike all previous decisions by the Magistrate 

Judges in this case are denied. 

3-0RDER 
As noted above, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's F&R (doc. 

198) in its entirety. Accordingly, defendants Motion to Dismiss (doc. 137) is 

GRANTED, and plaintiffs Amended Complaint (doc. 135) is dismissed, with 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this If ti of May 2019. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

4-0RDER