Carter v. Fred Meyer Jewelers, Inc.

Filing 116

ORDER: Finding no error, the Court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation (ECF 103 ). Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 62 ) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF 71 ) are denied against the First Claim and Second Claim, granted against the Third Claim, and granted in part and denied in part against the Sixth Claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 7/16/2019 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (pvh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CHRISTOPHER CARTER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00883-YY
ORDER

v.
FRED MEYER JEWELERS, INC., a
California Corporation,
Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on April 10, 2019. ECF 103. Magistrate Judge You recommended that Defendant’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 62) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF 71) should be
denied against the First Claim and Second Claim, granted against the Third Claim, and granted
in part and denied in part against the Sixth Claim. ECF 103 at 27.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.
PAGE 1 – ORDER

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations,
“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither
party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to
require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); United
States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court
must review de novo magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but
not otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Act “does not
preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other
standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the Court review the magistrate
judge’s recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
Defendant timely filed an objection (ECF 108) to which Plaintiff responded. ECF 111.
Defendant objects to the portion of Magistrate Judge You’s recommendation finding a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant’s reasons for terminating Plaintiff were pretext
designed to hide an unlawful motivation to interfere with Plaintiff’s medical leave. Judge You
reviewed the entire record in this case and concluded that there is a genuine dispute of fact as to
whether Plaintiff, a supervisor at Fred Meyer Jewelers, engaged in fraud or merely made a
mistake while adjusting an employee’s timesheets and punch card entries. Judge You also noted
that Defendant’s own policies require termination for conduct involving fraud or dishonesty, but
do not require termination for conduct involving mistake. The Court agrees with Judge You that

PAGE 2 – ORDER

Plaintiff has established that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff’s
medical leave was a negative factor in Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff. The Court has
reviewed de novo those portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which Defendant
objects and has reviewed the remainder of the Findings and Recommendation for clear error.
Finding no error, the Court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation (ECF 103).
Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 62) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF 71)
are denied against the First Claim and Second Claim, granted against the Third Claim, and
granted in part and denied in part against the Sixth Claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
DATED this ___th day of July, 2019.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 3 – ORDER