Smith v. Limerick

Opinion

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

G. SMITH, Case No. 1:17-cv-00712-CL ORDER

Plaintiff, vs.

JILL LIMERICK,

Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (Doc. 118) recommending that plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, (Doc. 108), should be DENIED as futile, and plaintiff should be given leave to file a renewed motion to restate her claims for trespass and trespass to chattels within thirty days. This case is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the 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).

Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the F&R. Doc. 121. Having reviewed the objection and the entire file of this case, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Clarke’s order. Thus, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Clarke’s F&R (Doc. 118) in its entirety. Plaintiff’s present motion for leave (Doc. 108) is DENIED. However, plaintiff is granted leave to file a renewed motion to restate her claims for trespass and trespass to chattels within thirty days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this _2_4_t_h_ day of March, 2021.

____________/s_/_A_n_n__ A__ik_e_n___________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge