McIntire v. Sage Software, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks' Findings & Recommendation 34 , and therefore, Defendant Matrix's motion to dismiss 26 is granted. Plaintiff's Fourth Claim for Relief is dismissed with prejudice, and Defendant Matrix is dismissed. All other outstanding motions are denied as moot. Signed on 12/17/2015 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARY MCINTIRE,
No. 3:15-cv-00769-JE
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
SAGE SOFTWARE, INC., a foreign
business corporation, and MATRIX
ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC.,
a foreign business corporation,
Defendants.

Benjamin Rosenthal
1023 SW Yamhill St., Ste. 200
Portland, OR 97205
Attorney for Plaintiff
//
//

1 - ORDER

Kelly S. Riggs
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C.
222 SW Columbia St., Ste. 1500
Portland, OR 97201
Attorney for Defendant Matrix

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued a Findings & Recommendation [34] on September 28,
2015, in which he recommends the Court grant Defendant Matrix’s motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has timely filed
objections [37] 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 a 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 Plaintiff’s 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 errors in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.
//
//
//
//
//

2 - ORDER

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks’ Findings & Recommendation [34], and
therefore, Defendant Matrix’s motion to dismiss [26] is granted. Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for
Relief is dismissed with prejudice, and Defendant Matrix is dismissed. All other outstanding
motions are denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this

day of December, 2015.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER