Miller v. State of Oregon et al

Filing 29

OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 27 . Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 3 is Granted as to Miller's Fourteenth Amendment claim and Denied as Moot as to Miller's remaining state-law claims for sex and age discrimination, and Miller's sex- and age-discrimination claims are Remanded to the Multnomah County Circuit Court. Signed on 8/2/16 by Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

JILL MILLER,
No. 3:15-cv-00300-PK
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
OREGON RACING COMMISSION,
JACK McGRAIL, AND CHRIS DUDLEY,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On July 11, 2016, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation
(F&R) [27], recommending I enter an order DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Oregon Constitutional
claim and defamation claim with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ stipulations; I GRANT IN
PART the Motion to Dismiss [3] as to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Claim; DENY AS
MOOT the Motion [3] as to Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims for sex and age
discrimination; and REMAND to the Multnomah County Circuit Plaintiff’s remaining state-law
claims. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge,
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R
depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject,
or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [27]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 2nd day of August, 2016.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman
_____ ______________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER