Pullen-Hughes v. City of Portland et al

Filing 137

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendations 35 . The Court GRANTS defendants Noordeloos, Kephart, Wahlstrom and LaCaria's motion to dismiss 109 . In addition, the Court GRANTS defendants City of Gresham and Hoecker's motion for summary judgment 125 . The Court also DISMISSES the claims against the remaining nonmoving Defendants. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed on 4/12/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

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

MARY JO PULLEN-HUGHES,

Case No.: 3:11-cv-01271-PK

Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
PARRIS LaCARIA, individually; JOSEPH
LUIZ, individually; DAVID
NOORDELOOS, individually; CLIFFORD
HOECKER, individually; ANNA ZEIGER
KEPHART, individually; ELIZABETH
EAMES, individually; JENNA PLANK,
individually; DAVID WOBORIL,
individually; DALE HOSKINS, individually;
ERIC WAHLSTROM, individually; JOHN
DOES 1-3, individually; CITY OF
PORTLAND, a municipality; CITY OF
GRESHAM, a municipality; MULTNOMAH
COUNTY,
Defendants.

SIMON, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak filed Findings and Recommendations in the abovecaptioned case on March 15th, 2013. Dkt. 135. Judge Papak recommended that the Court grant
defendants Noordeloos, Kephart, Wahlstrom and LaCaria’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. 109. Judge
Papak also recommended that the Court grant defendants City of Gresham and Hoecker’s motion
for summary judgment. Dkt. 125. Finally, Judge Papak recommended that the Court should sua

sponte dismiss all claims against the remaining nonmoving defendants John Doe 1, John Doe 2,
John Doe 3, Multnomah County, and the City of Portland. No party has filed objections.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “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.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe a standard of review. In such cases,
“[t]here is no indication that Congress . . . intended to require a district judge to review a
magistrate’s report[.]” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States. v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003)
(the court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made,
“but not otherwise”).
Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude
further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.”
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings
and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendations for clear error
on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
The Court ADOPTS Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendations. Dkt. 135. The
Court GRANTS defendants Noordeloos, Kephart, Wahlstrom and LaCaria’s motion to dismiss.

Page 2 – ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Dkt. 109. In addition, the Court GRANTS defendants City of Gresham and Hoecker’s motion
for summary judgment. Dkt. 125. The Court also DISMISSES the claims against the remaining
nonmoving Defendants. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of April, 2013.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

Page 3 – ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS