Gale v. SAIF Corporation, 3:18-cv-00707-AC. (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20200219i74
Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 16, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2020
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [105] on January 3, 2020, in which he recommends that the Court should grant in part Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [88]. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Mag
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [105] on January 3, 2020, in which he recommends that the Court should grant in part Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [88]. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magi..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [105] on January 3, 2020, in which he recommends that the Court should grant in part Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [88]. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and concludes that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation [105]. Therefore, Defendant's Motions to Dismiss [90, 91, 92, 93, 96] are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
