Taylor-Shelton v. Credit Associates, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER: I adopt Judge Coffin's F&R 33 in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 21 and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 25 are DENIED. Signed on 3/25/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

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

JULIE TAYLOR-SHELTON,

Case 6:17-cv-01195-MK
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

CREDIT ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation
("F&R") (doc. 33) recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement
and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgement be denied. Defendant then
timely filed objections to the F&R (doc. 35). The matter is now before me. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any
portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, 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)(l); McDonnell Douglas Corp. u. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d

Page 1 - ORDER

1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Based on my review of
the F&R and the documents in the case, I find no error in Judge Coffin's F&R and
Defendant's objections do not undermine Judge Coffin's analysis. Thus, I adopt Judge
Coffin's F&R (doc. 33) in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgement (doc. 21) and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (doc. 25)
are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

;,,.__

Dated thisoc'S day of March, 2019.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 2 - ORDER