Smith v. City of Medford, Oregon

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

JERRY SMITH Case No. 1:17-cv-00931-CL OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 77) in this case on October 5, 2020. In the F&R, Judge Clarke recommended denying in part and granting in part defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 51). The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Plaintiff filed timely objections. Doc. 81. Accordingly, the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 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).

Before turning to plaintiff’s objections, the Court will address the parties’ Motions to Supplement the Record (docs. 89, 92), which are also before the Court.

Having reviewed the briefing on these matters, the Court GRANTS the motions. The Court has considered the supplemental evidence and concludes that they do not provide a basis to modify or reject the F&R. The Court has also carefully considered plaintiff’s objections and the pertinent portions of the record de novo and concludes that they do not provide any basis to modify or reject the F&R. Finally, the Court has reviewed the remainder of the F&R and record and find no errors in Judge Clarke’s reasoning. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the F&R (doc. 77).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this _3_0_t_h_ day of July 2021.

________/_s_/A__n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n_______ Ann Aiken United States District Judge