Koch v. City of St. Paul et al

Filing 74

ORDER: The Court adopts the F&R 59 in its entirely. Accordingly, defendants' Motion to Dismiss 43 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the motion is denied as to claims II, V, VI, VIII as to defendant Wallis, and IX , and granted as to claims I, IV, VII, VIII as to defendant Schroeder, X, and XI. The motion is also granted as to claim III against Wallis and Schroeder. See F&R at 2. Except for Claim I, count I and Claim VII, which are dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff is granted leave to amend all remaining claims. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this Order in which to file an amended complaint. Signed on 9/18/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

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

Case No. 6:18-cv-0507-MK

LEE KOCH,

ORDER
Plaintiff,

v.
CITY OF ST. PAUL, an Oregon
Municipal Corporation; KIMBALL
WALLIS, and Individual; and LAURA
SCHROEDER, an Individual,

Defendants.
AIKEN, District Judge:
Magistrate

Judge

Mustafa

Kasubhai

has

filed

his

Findings

and

Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 59) recommending that defendants' Motion to
Dismiss be granted. (doc. 43) This case is now before me. 1

See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

This case is consolidated with Biggs v. City of St. Paul, et al. 6:18-cv-506MK. While Judge Kasubhai addressed defendants Motions to Dismiss in both cases
1

Page 1 - ORDER

'When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the
district court must make a de nova determination of that portion of the magistrate
judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); McDonnell Doitglas Corp. v. Commodore

Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S.
920 (1982). Plaintiff has filed timely objections (doc. 62) to the F&R and defendant's
have filed a timely response to those objections. (doc. 66) Thus, this Court reviews
the F&R de nova.
Having reviewed the objections as well as the entire file of this case, the
Court finds no error in Judge Kasubhai's F&R. Thus, the Court adopts the F&R
(doc. 59) in it's entirely. Accordingly, defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 43) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the motion is denied as to
claims II, V, VI, VIII as to defendant Wallis, and IX, and granted as to claims I, IV,
VII, VIII as to defendant Schroeder, X, and XI. The motion is also granted as to
claim III against vVallis and Schroeder. See F&R at 2. Except for Claim I, count I
and Claim VII, which are dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff is granted leave to
amend all remaining claims. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this
Order in which to file an amended complaint.

It is so ORDERED this 18th day of September, 2019.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge
in a single order, this Court issues separate orders in each case regarding the F&R
for clarity.
Page 2 - ORDER