Haber v. City of Portland

D. Oregon

Haber v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided April 9, 2021·No. 3:17-cv-01827·Unknown

Opinion

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

JOSEF HABER, an individual, on behalf of themself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, No. 3:17-cv-01827-JR v. OPINION AND ORDER CITY OF PORTLAND et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On December 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 128]. Judge Russo recommended that I grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 84], deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 85], and dismiss this case. Both Parties filed objections. Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo and DISMISS this case with prejudice. STANDARD OF REVIEW The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F. & R. to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F. & R. depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo’s findings and recommendation, and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 128] as my own opinion. I GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 84] and DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 85]. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this day of April, 2021.

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

JOSEF HABER, an individual, on behalf of themself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, No. 3:17-cv-01827-JR v. OPINION AND ORDER CITY OF PORTLAND et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On December 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 128]. Judge Russo recommended that I grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 84], deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 85], and dismiss this case. Both Parties filed objections. Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo and DISMISS this case with prejudice. STANDARD OF REVIEW The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F. & R. to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F. & R. depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo’s findings and recommendation, and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 128] as my own opinion. I GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 84] and DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 85]. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this day of April, 2021.

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER

Haber v. City of Portland, (D. Or. 2021).

Pincite

Haber v. City of Portland (Haber v. City of Portland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related