Smith v. City of Medford, Oregon

Filing 93

OPINION AND ORDER: Motion to Supplement Record 92 and Motion to Supplement Record 89 are GRANTED. The Court ADOPTS the Findings & Recommendation 77 . The Motion for Summary Judgment 51 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Signed on 7/30/2021 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Case 1:17-cv-00931-CL

Document 93

Filed 07/30/21

Page 1 of 2

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

Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 1:17-cv-00931-CL

Document 93

Filed 07/30/21

Page 2 of 2

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 _____ day of July 2021.
30th

__________________________
/s/Ann Aiken
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER