Marquez v. Harper School District NO. 66 et al

Filing 55

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation 51 , DENIES Plaintiff's Motion 30 for Partial Summary Judgment, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion 27 for Summary Judgment. Signed on 06/16/2011 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See 5 page Order for full text. (bb)

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

JESSICA MARQUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARPER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
66, a public entity also
known as MALHEUR COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 66; DENNIS
SAVAGE, Harper School
District No. 66
Superintendent; LYNN HAUETER,
member of Harper School
District No. 66 Board of
Directors; SHELLY DENNIS,
Chair, Harper School District
No. 66 Board of Directors;
LISA FISHER, member of Harper
School District No. 66 Board
of Directors; RON TALBOT,
Principal, Harper School
District No. 66; BARBARA
OLSON, member of Harper
School District No. 66 Board
of Directors; each and all in
their individual and official
capacities
Defendants.

1 - ORDER

2:09-CV-01254-SU
ORDER

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and
Recommendation (#51) on March 24, 2011, in which she recommended
the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion (#30) for Partial Summary
Judgment and grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion
(#27) for Summary Judgment on the grounds that genuine issues of
material fact exist that preclude summary judgment with respect
to Plaintiff's claims other than the claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiff filed timely

Objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

The matter is now

636(b) (1) and Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's
report.
Tapia,

28 U.S.C.

636(b) (1).

See also United States v.

Reyna-

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9 th Cir. 2003) (en banc); United

States v.

I.

§

Bernhardt,

840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9 th Cir. 1988).

Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which
Plaintiff did not object.
As to the portions of the Findings and Recommendation to

which Plaintiff did not object, this Court is relieved of its
obligation to review the record de novo.
Reyna-Tapia,

2 - ORDER

See United States v.

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9 th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

See

also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9 th Cir.

1988).

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court

does not find any error in these portions of the Magistrate
Judge's analysis of the grounds on which the parties moved for
summary judgment.

II.

Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which
Plaintiff objected.
Plaintiff objects to the Findings and Recommendation "to the

extent that the F&R conclude that any of defendants'
justifications for their actions are legitimate, nondiscriminatory justifications, and to the extent that the F&R
recommend denial of plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on
plaintiff's First through Fifth claims for relief."

A.

Defendants' legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
their actions.
As noted, Plaintiff objects to the Findings and

Recommendation "to the extent that the F&R conclude that any of
defendants' justifications for their actions are legitimate, nondiscriminatory justifications."

In her Objections, however,

Plaintiff simply reiterates the arguments contained in her
Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Moreover,

the Court notes the Magistrate Judge's conclusion in this regard
merely relates to the applicable burden-shifting analysis the
Magistrate Judge was required to apply.
however, resolve Plaintiff's claims.

3 - ORDER

The conclusion does not,

Indeed, the Magistrate

Judge appropriately found many issues of disputed material fact
precluding summary judgment.

After carefully considering

Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that
Defendants provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
some of their actions, this Court concludes Plaintiff's
Objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and
Recommendation.

The Court also has reviewed the pertinent

portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the
Magistrate Judge's analysis of the grounds on which the parties
moved for summary judgment with respect to this issue.

B.

Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to
Plaintiff's First through Fifth Claims.
Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First through Fifth Claims
because "[P]laintiff's evidence of pretext is overwhelming and
warrants summary judgment in [P]laintiff's favor."

In her

Objections, however, Plaintiff merely reiterates the arguments
contained in her Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

Again, the Magistrate Judge's analysis merely

concludes there remain issues of fact as to pretext.

Again,

after carefully considering Plaintiff's Objections to the
Magistrate Judge's conclusion that genuine disputes of material
fact exist precluding summary judgment on Plaintiff's First
through Fifth Claims, this Court concludes Plaintiff's Objections
4 - ORDER

"

,

,

I>

do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation.
The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record
de novo and does not find any error in the

Magistrate Judge's

analysis of the grounds on which the parties moved for summary
judgment with respect to this issue with respect to this issue.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and
Recommendation (#51), DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (#30) for Partial
Summary Judgment, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Defendants' Motion (#27) for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16 th day of June, 2011.

ANNA~
United States District Judge

5 - ORDER