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

(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.

(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall,

(9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(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