Khamnayev v. Schnitzer Steel industries, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided August 2, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-00391·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

OKSANA KHAMNAYEV, Case No. 3:22-cv-00391-AR

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING F&R

v.

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Martin C. Dolan, Dolan Law Group PC, 4300 NE Fremont St, Suite 250, Portland, OR 97213. Attorney for Plaintiff.

Daniel Schmidt and Stephen M. Scott, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, 111 SW 5th Ave, Suite 4040, Portland, OR 97204. Attorneys for Defendant.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On June 16, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 17, recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 7, be denied. Defendant filed objections on July 7, 2023, ECF 22, and Plaintiff filed a response on July 28, 2023, ECF 26. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the F&R to which Defendant objected. This Court accepts Judge Armistead’s conclusions and ADOPTS Judge Armistead’s F&R in full. STANDARDS Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court 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). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. CONCLUSION This Court has carefully reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Armistead’s F&R to

which Defendant objected. Judge Armistead’s F&R, ECF 17, is adopted in full. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 7, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2023.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge

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

Khamnayev v. Schnitzer Steel industries, Inc., (D. Or. 2023).

Khamnayev v. Schnitzer Steel industries, Inc. (Khamnayev v. Schnitzer Steel industries, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)