Richardson et al v. Shubert et al

Filing 48

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation 40 . Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 28 is denied. See 2-page order attached. Signed on 12/29/2014 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELLY J. RICHARDSON, and JAMES
POWELL, personally and as next friend for
I.R., a minor, and S.P., a minor,
No 3:14-cv-01027-ST
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
EMILIE SCHUBERT, in her individual
capacity, GINGER VAN WINKLE, in
her individual capacity, ERIN WIRTZ,
in her individual capacity, JENNIE SMITH,
in her individual capacity, KRISTIN LEMON,
in her individual capacity, CARLOS CRUTCH,
in his individual capacity, LINDSEY VERNOOY,
in her individual capacity, DANIELLE SANTILI-DAY,
in her individual capacity,
Defendants.
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [40] on November 14,
2014, in which she recommends that this Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [28]. The

1 - ORDER

matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 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
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 Defendants’ 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 Stewart’s Findings & Recommendation [40].
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [28] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

day of

, 201_____.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

2 - ORDER