Hensley v. Nike

D. Oregon

Hensley v. Nike

DecidedFebruary 23, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-00791

StatusUnknown

This text of Hensley v. Nike (Hensley v. Nike) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hensley v. Nike, (D. Or. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

LEANNE J. HENSLEY, Plaintiff, Vv. No. 3:20-cv-00791-JR NIKE et al., OPINION AND ORDER Defendants.

MOSMAN, J., On September 21, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 28]. Judge Russo recommended that I dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [ECF 27] without prejudice, Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo and DISMISS Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF 27] without prejudice. DISCUSSION 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

1 —- OPINION AND ORDER

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F. & R. to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. 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 28] as my own opinion. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF 27] is DISMISSED without prejudice. Ms. Hensley has until March 23, 2021, to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint as ordered will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this_@tay of February, 2021.

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States Prstrict 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

LEANNE J. HENSLEY, Plaintiff, Vv. No. 3:20-cv-00791-JR NIKE et al., OPINION AND ORDER Defendants.

MOSMAN, J., On September 21, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 28]. Judge Russo recommended that I dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [ECF 27] without prejudice, Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo and DISMISS Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF 27] without prejudice. DISCUSSION 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

1 —- OPINION AND ORDER

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F. & R. to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. 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 28] as my own opinion. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF 27] is DISMISSED without prejudice. Ms. Hensley has until March 23, 2021, to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint as ordered will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this_@tay of February, 2021.

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States Prstrict Judge

2 OPINION AND ORDER

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hensley v. Nike, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hensley-v-nike-ord-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack