Justin Clemens v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JUSTIN CLEMENS, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01590-JR

Plaintiff, v. ORDER TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON,

Defendant.

Adrienne Nelson, District Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued a findings and recommendation (“F&R”) in this case on March 2, 2026. Judge Russo recommended that this Court deny defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant timely filed objections, to which plaintiff timely responded. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the F&R in full. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. A district court judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). No standard of review is prescribed for portions for the report for which no objections are filed, and no review is required in the absence of objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 382 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge is not, however, precluded from reviewing the report sua sponte under a de novo, or any other, standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154; Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017). Courts in this District have followed the Advisory Committee’s recommendation that, when no timely objection is filed, findings and recommendations be reviewed for “clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment; see, e.g., Hayden v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1125, 1127 (D. Or. 2015) (following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviewing magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record”). Plaintiff Justin Clemens brings this employment discrimination action against his former employer, defendant Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon (“TriMet”), a public transit agency serving the greater Portland metropolitan area, see ECF 1, at 8. Plaintiff brings both federal and state law claims for disability discrimination and retaliation, see id. at 14-19. On October 23, 2025, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 9. The parties fully briefed the motion, see ECF 11 (plaintiff's response), ECF 12 (defendant’s reply). On March 2, 2026, Judge Russo issued the now-pending F&R, ECF 13, which recommends that this Court deny defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant timely filed objections, arguing that the F&R erred by: (1) “improperly treat[ing] a dispute over plaintiff's preferred accommodation as a plausible failure to accommodate claim,” (2) “not giv[ing] proper effect to the Complaint’s allegations showing TriMet engaged in the interactive process,” (3) “giv[ing] insufficient effect to the safety-sensitive context and TriMet’s neutral-policy argument,” (4) “erroneously conclud]ing] the Complaint plausibly alleges constructive discharge,” (5) “not properly address[ing] TriMet’s chronology argument, which defeats retaliation at least as to the March 2024 investigation and discipline,” (6) “rel[ying] too heavily on temporal proximity while overlooking pleaded facts inconsistent with retaliatory motive,” and (7) “giv[ing] undue weight to conclusory comparator allegations,” ECF 15 (bold and capitalization omitted). Plaintiff timely responded in opposition, ECF 16. Upon de novo review, this Court agrees with the F&R’s findings and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the F&R, ECF 13, in full; and thereby DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF 19.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2026.

Adrienne Nelson United States District Judge