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)

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