Dean v. Safeway, Inc.

Filing 57

ORDER: The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation 48 . Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 20 is denied with respect to Plaintiff's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims for relief, and granted with respect to Plaintiff's seventh claim for relief. Plaintiff has voluntarily abandoned his eighth claim for relief. See 3-page order attached. Signed on 11/18/2014 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ROBIN DEAN, No. 3:12-cv-01875-PK Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY, INC., Defendant. Kerry M. L. Smith SMITH & FJELSTAD 725 N. Main Ave. Gresham, OR 97030 Attorney for Plaintiff Lisa C. Brown BULLARD LAW 200 SW Market Street, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97201 Attorney for Defendant // 1 - ORDER ORDER HERNANDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation (#48) on August 7 2014, in which he recommends that the Court should grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant timely filed objections to the Findings and 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 and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 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 Defendant’s objections and conclude that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. // // // // // // // // // // 2 - ORDER CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation (# 48). Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#20) is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims for relief, and granted with respect to Plaintiff’s seventh claim for relief. Plaintiff has voluntarily abandoned his eighth claim for relief. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this day of ____________________, 201_. MARCO A. HERNANDEZ United States District Judge 3 - ORDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?