Steininger v. Legacy Health

District Court, D. Oregon

Steininger v. Legacy Health

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JOSEPH STEININGER, an individual No. 3:24-cv-01095-YY Plaintiff, ORDER v.

LEGACY HEALTH, a corporation, Defendant.

BAGGIO, District Judge:

On April 7, 2025, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (ECF 22), recommending GRANTING Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 9) and dismissing Plaintiff’s ORS 659A.030 failure-to-accommodate claim.1 Plaintiff filed objections (ECF 24) to which Defendant responded (ECF 27). After careful review of the record, the Court adopts Judge You’s F&R without modification. The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections.

28 U.S.C. §§ 636

(b)(1)(B), (C). If a party objects, the court “shall make a

1 Plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss all his claims except his failure-to-accommodate claims under Title VII and ORS § 659A.030. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9], 1 (ECF 19). de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.” /d. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court is not, however, required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 US. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Ramos,

65 F.4th 427

, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). While the level of scrutiny that the court applies to its F&R review depends on whether a party has filed objections, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas, 474 USS. at 154. The Court adopts Judge You’s recommendation in full. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 9) and dismisses Plaintiff's ORS 659A.030 failure-to-accommodate claim with prejudice. Defendant is directed to file an Answer or other responsive pleading to the remaining Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim within fourteen days of the date that this Order is filed. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 27" day of May 2025.

Amy M. Baggur AMY M.BAGGIO United States District Judge

2 — ORDER

Reference

Status
Unknown