MILLER v. CITY OF PORTLAND, 3:12-cv-01222-AC. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20140821c46
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings & Recommendation [52] on June 10, 2014, recommending that Plaintiff Roberta Miller's Motion for Attorney Fees [40] be denied. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me 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 & Recommendation, the distric
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings & Recommendation [52] on June 10, 2014, recommending that Plaintiff Roberta Miller's Motion for Attorney Fees [40] be denied. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me 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 & Recommendation, the district..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings & Recommendation [52] on June 10, 2014, recommending that Plaintiff Roberta Miller's Motion for Attorney Fees [40] be denied. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me 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 & 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).
I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation [52], and therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees [40] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
