Carrion v. Keen, Inc.

Filing 72

ORDER: The Court Adopts Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings & Recommendation 63 , and therefore, Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 48 is Granted as to Plaintiff's fourth claim for relief (whistleblower retalia tion) to the extent that claim is based on an alleged violation of O.R.S. 659A.230, and further Granted as to Plaintiff's fifth claim for relief (common law wrongful discharge) to the extent it is premised on her threatening to file a BOLI complaint. The motion is otherwise Denied. Signed on 12/20/15 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EVELYN CARRION,

No. 03:14-cv-00454-PK
Plaintiff,

v.
KEEN, INC ., a foreign business
corporation,

ORDER

Defendant.
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings & Recommendation (#63) on October 16,
2015, in which he recommends the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion for
partial summary judgment. Plaintiff and Defendant have 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 both parties' 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 Papak's Findings & Recommendation [63], and
therefore, Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [48] is granted as to Plaintiff's
fourth claim for relief (whistleblower retaliation) to the extent that claim is based on an alleged
violation of O.R.S. 659A.230, and further granted as to Plaintiff's fifth claim for relief (common
law wrongful discharge) to the extent it is premised on her threatening to file a BOLI complaint.
The motion is otherwise denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

20

day of

December , 2015.

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge

2 - ORDER