Drozd v. City of Portland, et al

Filing 100

ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 90 . Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 71 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Signed on 5/14/20 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)

Case 3:17-cv-00556-HZ

Document 100

Filed 05/14/20

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ALLYSON DROZD,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00556-JR
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
JEFFREY McDANIEL, and LARRY
GRAHAM, as individuals, and CITY
OF PORTLAND,
Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [90] on December 19,
2019, in which she recommends the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment [71]. Both Plaintiff and Defendants timely filed objections to the Findings
and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

1 - ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-00556-HZ

Document 100

Filed 05/14/20

Page 2 of 2

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
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).
The Court has carefully considered the parties’ objections and concludes that the
objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed
the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings
and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [90].
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [71] is granted in part and denied in
part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 14, 2020
DATED: _______________________________________________________.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

2 - ORDER