United States District Court, D. Oregon
Kerry M. L. Smith, SMITH & FJELSTAD, Gresham, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff,
Lisa C. Brown, BULLARD LAW, Portland, OR, Attorney for Defendant.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation (#48) on August 7, 2014, in which he recommends that the Court should grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
I have carefully considered Defendant's objections and conclude that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (# 48). Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#20) is denied with respect to Plaintiff's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims for relief, and granted with respect to Plaintiff's seventh claim ...