Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shelton v. Fiskar Brands, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Oregon

March 23, 2015

CRAIG SHELTON, Plaintiff,
v.
FISKAR BRANDS, INC., d/b/a GERBER LEGENDARY BLADES, Defendant.

ORDER

ANNA J. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation (#60) on February 10, 2015, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendant’s Motion (#46) for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Third Claim, deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s First and Second Claims, and grant Plaintiff’s Motion (#43) for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Affirmative Defenses. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Findings and Recommendation (#60). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part Defendant's Motion (#46) for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Third Claim and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion as to Plaintiff’s First and Second Claims. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion (#43) for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Affirmative Defenses.

This action, therefore, will go forward only as to Plaintiff’s First Claim for violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4311(b); Plaintiff’s Second Claim for discrimination in violation Oregon Revised Statute § ORS 659A.082; and Defendant’s affirmative defenses of failure to state a claim and that Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.