Biolchini v. City of Bend et al

Filing 100

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 91 ; Granting in Part Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment 28 . Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 28 is Granted with respect to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the City and Plaintiff's state law claims against Sergeant Ritchie, and the Motion is Denied in all other respects. Signed on 02/23/2011 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (lg)

Biolchini v. City of Bend et al

Doc. 100

·FILED'ii FEB 24 H:iBUSDC·ORE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DOUGLAS C. BIOLCHINI, Plaintiff,
v.

Civ. No. 09-6216-TC ORDER

CITY OF BEND and SERGEANT DANIEL RITCHIE, Defendants. Aiken, Chief Judge: Magistrate Judge Coffin issued his Findings and Recommendation in the above-captioned action on December 28, Judge Coffin recommends that 2010. Magistrate for summary

defendants'motion

judgment be granted with respect to plaintiff's municipal liability claims alleged against the City of Bend under 42 U.S.C. his state law claims alleged against Sergeant Ritchie. Judge Coffin further
§

1983 and

Magistrate

recommends that the motion be denied with

-1-

ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

i

respect to plaintiff's

§

1983 claims asserted against Sergeant The

Richie and the state law claims asserted against the City. matter is now before me. Civ. P. 72 (b) . When either party obj ects to See 28 U.S.C.
§

636(b)

(1)

(B) and Fed. R.

any portion of a magistrate

judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C.
§

636(b) (1); Inc.,

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

v.

Commodore Business Machines, 1981) . Defendants

656 F.2d 1309, 1313

(9th Cir.

filed timely obj ections to the Findings and Upon de novo review of Magistrate Coffin's

Recommendation.

Findings and Recommendation, I find no error. I agree with Magistrate Judge Coffin that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on plaintiff's
§

1983

claims against Sergeant Ritchie and his state law claims against the City, in that questions of fact remain as to the reasonableness and probable cause supporting plaintiff's arrest and subsequent criminal charges. (9th Cir. 2003) Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949, 955-56 (when officer's reasonable belief "depends on

disputed issues of material fact,

it is not a legal inquiry, but I further

rather a question of fact best resolved by a jury").

agree that plaintiff fails to establish municipal liability under
§

1983 and that Sergeant Ritchie is not the proper defendant with

respect to plaintiff's state law claims.

-2-

ORDER

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recormnendation ADOPTED in its entirety. (doc. 28) (doc. 91) filed December 28, 2010 is

Defendants' Motion for Surmnary Judgment
§

is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's

1983 claims

against the City and plaintiff's state law claims against Sergeant Ritchie, and the motion is DENIED in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this

~ day of February, 2011.

f-j)

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

-3-

ORDER