Smith v. Limerick

D. Oregon

Smith v. Limerick

DecidedJanuary 16, 2020

Docket1:17-cv-00712

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Limerick (Smith v. Limerick) 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

Smith v. Limerick, (D. Or. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION .

GWENDOLYN SMITH, No. 1:17-cv-00712-CL . ORDER. Plaintiff, v. JILL LIMERICK, BARBARA WILT, and JAMES SANSONE, Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation □□ (“F&R”) (doc. 84) recommending that defendants’ motions to dismiss (doc. 34, 44, and 538) be GRANTED and the majority of plaintiffs claims in her Second Amended

Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Magistrate Judge Clarke also recommended that plaintiff should be required to show good cause prior to being allowed to file any further claims against defendants Barbara Wilt and James Sansome. The case is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff has filed timely objections (doc. 90) to the F&R, and defendant Barbara Wilt also filed timely objections. (doc. 87). No responses were filed be either party. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the

1 - ORDER

district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge’s report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no error in the F&R. Thus, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Clarke’s F&R (doc. 84) in its entirety. Accordingly, defendant’s motions (docs. 34, 44, and 53) are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be allowed to proceed on her claims for Trespass and Trespass to Chatels against defendant, Limerick. All claims against defendants Wilt and Sansome are dismissed, with. prejudice. Further, for the reasons expressed in the F&R, plaintiff shall be required to make a showing of good cause prior to filing any further claims or cases against defendants Wilt and Sansome in this Court. Finally, while the Court does not grant defendant Wilt’s request for sanctions related to her court fees, she is advised that she may submit a request for costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. IT 1S SO ORDERED. Dated this/Z yi of January 2020.

wer (bev Ann Aiken United States District Judge

2- 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 MEDFORD DIVISION .

GWENDOLYN SMITH, No. 1:17-cv-00712-CL . ORDER. Plaintiff, v. JILL LIMERICK, BARBARA WILT, and JAMES SANSONE, Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation □□ (“F&R”) (doc. 84) recommending that defendants’ motions to dismiss (doc. 34, 44, and 538) be GRANTED and the majority of plaintiffs claims in her Second Amended

Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Magistrate Judge Clarke also recommended that plaintiff should be required to show good cause prior to being allowed to file any further claims against defendants Barbara Wilt and James Sansome. The case is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff has filed timely objections (doc. 90) to the F&R, and defendant Barbara Wilt also filed timely objections. (doc. 87). No responses were filed be either party. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the

1 - ORDER

district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge’s report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no error in the F&R. Thus, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Clarke’s F&R (doc. 84) in its entirety. Accordingly, defendant’s motions (docs. 34, 44, and 53) are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be allowed to proceed on her claims for Trespass and Trespass to Chatels against defendant, Limerick. All claims against defendants Wilt and Sansome are dismissed, with. prejudice. Further, for the reasons expressed in the F&R, plaintiff shall be required to make a showing of good cause prior to filing any further claims or cases against defendants Wilt and Sansome in this Court. Finally, while the Court does not grant defendant Wilt’s request for sanctions related to her court fees, she is advised that she may submit a request for costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. IT 1S SO ORDERED. Dated this/Z yi of January 2020.

wer (bev Ann Aiken United States District Judge

2- ORDER

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Limerick, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-limerick-ord-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack