Smith v. City of Medford, Oregon

Filing 141

OPINION AND ORDER: This Court has carefully reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Clarke's F&R to which Plaintiff objected. Judge Clarke's F&R 135 is adopted in full. Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment 107 is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 101 is DENIED. Signed on 11/15/2023 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

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

JEAN SMITH, as personal representative
of the Estate of Jerry Smith,
v.

Civ. No. 1:17-cv-00931-CL
OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff,

CITY OF MEDFORD,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
On June 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF No. 135, recommending that Defendant's Second
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 107, should be granted and that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 101, should be denied. Plaintiff
filed objections on July 26, 2023, ECF No. 139, and Defendant filed a response on
August 9, 2023, ECF No. 140.
This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the F&R to which Defendant
objected. This Court accepts Judge Clarke’s conclusions and ADOPTS Judge Clarke’s
F&R in full.
STANDARDS

Page 1 –OPINION & ORDER

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
If a party objects to a magistrate judge's F&R, “the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to
review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the
F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50
(1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua
sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
CONCLUSION
This Court has carefully reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Clarke’s F&R
to which Plaintiff objected. Judge Clarke’s F&R, ECF 135, is adopted in full.
Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 107, is GRANTED and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 101, is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this

15th

day of November 2023.

/s/Ann Aiken
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge

Page 2 –OPINION & ORDER