Wright v. Special Logistics Portland, LLC et al

Filing 77

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 75 as my own opinion. I accordingly (i) GRANT the stipulated motion to dismiss Plaintiff's FLSA claim 69 ; (ii) TERMINATE AS WITHDR AWN the original joint motion to certify the class and collective 53 ; (iii) DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff's motion to certify the class as to the claims against SLP 58 ; (iv) DENY AS MOOT the joint motion for court approval of the amended settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Peoplease 71 ; and (v) DISMISS all remaining claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed on 1/10/18 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

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

ALEX WRIGHT, both individually and, in
addition, on behalf of other similarly
situated employees,

No. 3:15-cv-02058-SB
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

v.

SPECIAL LOGISTICS PORTLAND,
LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and
PEOPLEASE LLC, a South Carolina
limited liability company,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On December 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [75], recommending that this Court (i) grant the stipulated motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s FLSA claim [69]; (ii) terminate as withdrawn the original joint motion to
certify the class and collective [53]; (iii) deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion to certify the class as to
the claims against SLP [58]; (iv) deny as moot the joint motion for court approval of the
amended settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Peoplease [71]; and (v) dismiss all
remaining claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Neither party objected.

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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
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 Beckerman’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R
[75] as my own opinion. I accordingly (i) GRANT the stipulated motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
FLSA claim [69]; (ii) TERMINATE AS WITHDRAWN the original joint motion to certify the
class and collective [53]; (iii) DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion to certify the class as to the
claims against SLP [58]; (iv) DENY AS MOOT the joint motion for court approval of the
amended settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Peoplease [71]; and (v) DISMISS all
remaining claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10th
DATED this ____ day of January, 2018.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman
_______________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge
2 – OPINION AND ORDER