Sawyer v. Central Oregon Community College, 6:17-cv-1150-JR. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20180613g59
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL J. McSHANE , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation ("F&R"), ECF No. 32, and the matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Defendants and Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the F&R. ECF No. 38 and 39. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309 , 1313 (9
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL J. McSHANE , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation ("F&R"), ECF No. 32, and the matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Defendants and Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the F&R. ECF No. 38 and 39. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309 , 1313 (9t..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. McSHANE, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation ("F&R"), ECF No. 32, and the matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Defendants and Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the F&R. ECF No. 38 and 39. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude that the F&R is correct. Judge Russo's F&R is adopted in full. Consistent with Judge Russo's F&R, Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss the first claim for relief against Defendant Central Oregon Community College is GRANTED;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss the first and third claims for relief against Defendants Shirley Metcalf, Matthew McCoy, and James Bennett is DENIED;
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss the second claim for relief is GRANTED, with leave for Plaintiffs to amend;
4. Defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth through eleventh claims for relief is DENIED, but the allegations related to damages for death in those claims are stricken;
5. Defendants' motion to dismiss the eleventh claim for relief is GRANTED, with leave for Plaintiffs to amend to assert an alternative claim against Defendant Lara; and
6. Defendants' motion to make more definite and certain the allegations of damages and scope of employment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
