United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
AIKEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
States Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo issued Findings and
Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 11) in this case
on September 12, 2018. Magistrate Judge Russo recommended
that defendant's Eugene School District 4J
("District") Motion to Dismiss (doc. 6) be granted.
For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate
Judge Russo's F&R.
the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), the Court may
"accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a
magistrate judge's F&R, "the court shall make a
de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made." Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P.
those portions of a magistrate judge's F&R to which
neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any
standard of review. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140,
152 (1985) ("There is no indication that Congress, in
enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to
review a magistrate's report to which no objections are
filed."); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the
Court must review a magistrate judge's findings and
recommendations de novo if objection is made,
"but not otherwise"). Although in the absence of
objection no review is required, the Act "does not
preclude further review by the district judge sua
sponte .. . under a de novo or any other standard."
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory
Committee Notes to Rule 72(b) recommend that "[w]hen no
timely objection is filed," the Court review the
magistrate judge's recommendations for "clear error
on the face of the record."
3, 2018, plaintiff, a graduate of South Eugene High School,
initiated this suit against alleging that, during the
2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 school years, the
District violated her rights under the Rehabilitation Act and
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
District moves to dismiss plaintiffs claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because plaintiff
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
("IDEA") and because the claims are barred by the
two-year statute of limitations in Or. Rev. Stat. §
12.110. Judge Russo recommends that the Court grant the
District's Motion to Dismiss on both grounds.
filed timely objections (doc. 14) to which defendants
responded (doc. 15) and plaintiff replied (doc.
Therefore, I will review de novo the specific
portions of the F&R to which plaintiff objected.
begin by addressing plaintiffs motion to take judicial notice
of three documents. Next, because it is potentially
dispositive, I will address plaintiffs judicial estoppel
argument, which is based on one of those documents. Then, I
will turn to plaintiffs objections-that Magistrate Judge
Russo erred in concluding that exhaustion was required and
that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Finally, I will address plaintiffs argument that Magistrate
Judge Russo erred in denying her request for leave to amend
the complaint and plaintiffs renewed request for leave to
objections, plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, asks
the Court to take judicial notice of three documents,
including (1) the District's reply brief on a motion to
dismiss in case involving a different plaintiff before the
Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings; (2) one of Judge
Russo's F&R's in another educational
discrimination case, G.M. v. Lincoln Cnty, Sch.
Dist., 2017 WL 2804996 (D. Or. Apr. 14, 2017); (3) Judge
McShane's Opinion and Order adopting the F&R 2017 WL
2804996 (D. Or. June 28, 2017). Plaintiffs requests are
denied because they do not comply with the Local Rules. LR
7-1 (b) (motions may not be combined with any response,
reply, or other pleading).
argues that the District's Motion to Dismiss should be
denied because the District took a contradictory position
regarding IDEA exhaustion in a reply brief for another case
before the Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings. That
brief was filed on September 17, 2018, after Magistrate Judge
Russo issued the F&R in this case. Because I denied
plaintiffs motion to take judicial notice above, the
District's reply brief cannot provide a basis for