Drozd v. McDaniel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ALLYSON DROZD, Case No. 3:17-cv-00556-JR Plaintiff, ORDER v. JEFFREY McDANIEL, and LARRY GRAHAM, as individuals, and CITY OF PORTLAND, Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [90] on December 19, 2019, in which she recommends the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [71]. Both Plaintiff and Defendants timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court 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).

The Court has carefully considered the parties’ objections and concludes that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [90].

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [71] is granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____________________M__a_y_ _1_4__, _2_0__2_0______________________.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge