Hurley v. Horizon Project, Inc. et al

Filing 88

ORDER. Defendants Jackson County and Megan Daniels timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation. I have, therefore, given that portion of the Findings and Recommendation a de novo review. I ag ree with Magistrate Judge Stewart's conclusion that with respect to plaintiff's negligence claim, it is premature to determine whether defendants may argue that they are entitled to a comparison of liability with the absentee State. I do n ot interpret Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation to foreclose the issue. To keep the record clear, I MODIFY Magistrate Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 84), as follows: the State of Oregon's Motions to Di smiss (docs. 42 & 55) the third-party complaints are GRANTED, and defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Alternative Motions (docs. 57 & 61) are DENIED, with leave to reassert the "alternative" portion of the motion as to plaintiff's negligence claim. I ADOPT the remainder of the Findings and Recommendation in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 01/15/2010 by Judge James A. Redden. (pvh)

FII.ED'10 J~ 15 136l}l;oc~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T DISTRICT OF O R E G O N

C A L E B H U R L E Y , t h r o u g h his guardian a d litem J I L L L A N E , Plaintiff,

C V 08-1365-ST

ORDER

v.

H O R I Z O N P R O J E C T , I N C , e t al., Defendants.

J A C K S O N COUNTY, M E G A N DANIELS, UMATILLA COUNTY, RICHARD G A R D U N O , and D E N N I S D A H L E N , Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.
STATE OF OREGON, LAURIE LINDBERG, JIM RANSOM, a n d J A N E AND J O H N D O E , Third-Party Defendants.

PAGE I-ORDER

REDDEN, Judge: O n D e c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 9 , M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e J a n i c e S t e w a r t fIled h e r F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ( d o c . 84) t h a t t h e c o u r t g r a n t t h e S t a t e o f O r e g o n ' s M o t i o n s t o D i s m i s s t h e t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t s (docs. 4 2 & 5 5 ) , a n d d e n y t h e c o u n t y d e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n s t o D i s m i s s a n d A l t e r n a t i v e M o t i o n s (docs. 5 7 & 61). T h e m a t t e r is n o w before m e p u r s u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rules o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 7 2 ( b ) a n d 54(d)(2)(D). T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s n o t b o u n d b y the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e , a n d " m a y a c c e p t , reject, o r m o d i f y t h e r e c o m m e n d e d d e c i s i o n , r e c e i v e further evidence, o r r e c o m m i t t h e m a t t e r t o t h e magistrate j u d g e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s . " 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). W h e n either party timely objects t o a n y portion o f t h e m a g i s t r a t e ' s Findings a n d Recommendation, t h e district court m u s t c o n d u c t a de n o v o r e v i e w o f those portions o f t h e m a g i s t r a t e ' s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.

neb);

McDonnell Douglas C o m . v. C o m m o d o r e Bus. Machines, 656 F . 2 d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). The district court is not, however, required t o review the factual a n d legal conclusions to w h i c h t h e parties do n o t object. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); U n i t e d States v. Reyna- Tapi~ 328 F . 3 d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants J a c k s o n County a n d M e g a n Daniels timely filed objections t o Magistrate J u d g e S t e w a r t ' s F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n . I have, therefore, g i v e n t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a d e n o v o review. I agree w i t h M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e S t e w a r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t w i t h r e s p e c t t o p l a i n t i f f ' s n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m , i t is p r e m a t u r e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t s m a y a r g u e t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o a c o m p a r i s o n o f l i a b i l i t y w i t h t h e a b s e n t e e State. I

PAGE 2 - ORDER

do n o t interpret Magistrate Judge S t e w a r t ' s Findings and Recommendation t o foreclose the issue. T o k e e p t h e r e c o r d clear, I M O D I F Y M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e S t e w a r t ' s F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n (doc. 84), as follows: t h e State o f O r e g o n ' s Motions to Dismiss (docs. 42 & 55) the third-party c o m p l a i n t s a r e G R A N T E D , a n d d e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n s to D i s m i s s a n d A l t e r n a t i v e M o t i o n s (docs. 57 & 61) are DENIED, with leave to reassert t h e "alternative" portion o f t h e motion as to p l a i n t i f f ' s n e g l i g e n c e claim. I A D O P T t h e r e m a i n d e r o f the F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n i n i t s entirety.

I T IS SO ORDERED.
D A T E D this

l«i-day o f January, 2010.

(~" ~A. Redden " "
\ Vnided States District Judge
"-.../

~f/A

P A G E 3 - OPINION A N D O R D E R