Miller v. Portland et al

Filing 56

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation 52 , and therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees 40 is denied. See 2-page order attached. Signed on 8/18/2014 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ROBERTA F. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:12-cv-01222-AC
ORDER

CITY OF PORTLAND, et al.,
Defendants.
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings & Recommendation [52] on June 10,
2014, recommending that Plaintiff Roberta Miller’s Motion for Attorney Fees [40] be denied.
Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now
before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings &
Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the

1 - ORDER

Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 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).
I have carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections and conclude there is no basis to modify
the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de
novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings & Recommendation [52], and
therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees [40] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this _______ day of ____________________, 2014.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

2 - ORDER