Bondick v. City of Eugene Police ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ROBERT BONDICK, Plaintiff, Case No. 6:22-cv-00668-MK v. ORDER CITY OF EUGENE POLICE, LANE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE, EUGENE CITY PROSECUTORS OFFICE, JESSICA SAYDACK, CITY OF EUGENE POLICE DEPARTMENT, EUGENE POLICE OFFICER R. RIOS, JOYCE Y. SCHIAVONE, ERIK HASSELMAN, PATRICIA PERLOW, ANDREW REINEN, TRAVIS G. SMITH, SUZANNE M. BRUCE, and AMBER HOLLISTER. Defendants. MCSHANE, Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 32), and the matter is now before this Court on Plaintiff's objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Ireview de novo. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 -ORDER Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 32) is adopted in full. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 30) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 17th day of April, 2023. /s/ Michael J. McShane Michael McShane United States District Judge 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s claims appear frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which is an independent ground for dismissing this case. For example, Plaintiff brings a claim for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial. The sole remedy for a violation of the speedy trial right is dismissal of the charges, which already occurred in Plaintiff’s case. See Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437, 444 (2016); Am. Compl. 4, ECF No. 31. Plaintiff’s remaining claims for conspiracy, legal malpractice, obstruction of justice, and negligence relate to his arrest and subsequent state-law prosecution. The Court is not obligated to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over only state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 2 –ORDER