Cidone v. Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon

Cidone v. Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

FINLEY CIDONE, an individual, No. 3:20-cv-01133-AC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

PINNACLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and BEL PORTLAND HOLDINGS LLC, a foreign limited liability company,

Defendant(s).

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation on May 21, 2021, in which he recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion. F&R, ECF 35. 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). Plaintiff and Defendant filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. Pl. Obj., ECF No. 37; Def. Obj., ECF No. 38. 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 the parties’ 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 Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation No. 35. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [8] is granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___S_e_p__te_m__b_e_r_ 1_0__, _2_0_2_1___.

___________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown