Davis v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

THERELL DAVIS, No. 3:20-cv-00947-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL

INSURANCE COMPANY,

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY,

PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE

COMPANY, and PROGRESSIVE

INSURANCE CORPORATION,

INC.,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on October 13, 2020, in which she recommends that this Court grant in party and deny in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. F&R, ECF 21. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Defendant filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. Defs. Obj., ECF 30. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & 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 Defendants’ objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [21].

Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [12] is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____M__a_r_c_h_ 9_,_ 2__0_2_1_______.

___________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge