Wright v. Brewer et al, No. 3:2010cv06118 - Document 427 (D. Or. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I ADOPT IN PART Magistrate Judge Papaks F&R 376 as my own opinion. Ms. Brewer's Motion to Compel 288 is DENIED without prejudice. Ms. Brewers Motion to Compel 291 is DENIED without prejudice. Plainti ffs Motion 308 for extension is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs Motion 312 to voluntarily dismiss certain of his claims isGRANTED, as stated in the F&R. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel 332 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel 335 is GRANTED. Plaint iffs Motion for Extension of Time 359 is GRANTED. The following documents are STRICKEN from the docket and shall be returned to the filing party: Ms. Brewers Motion to Strike Order or Make Payment for Order for Payment of Copy and Mail Fees 285 ; Ms. Brewers Memo in Support 286 ; Ms. Brewers Affidavit in Support 287 ; Ms. Brewers Notice 295 ; Ms. Brewers Notice 296 ; plaintiffs Notice 300 ;plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 305 ; plaintiffs Memo in Support 306 ; plaintiffs Objectio ns 314 ; plaintiffs Memo in Support 315 ; plaintiffs Affidavit in Support 316 ; plaintiffs Objection 322 ; plaintiffs Memo in Support 323 ; plaintiffs Affidavit in Support 324 ; plaintiffs Objection 326 ; plaintiffs Memo in Support 327 ; plain tiffs Affidavit in Support 328 ; plaintiffs Objection 329 ; plaintiffs Memo in Support 330 ; plaintiffs Affidavit in Support 331 ; plaintiffs Objections 339 ; plaintiffs Memo of Objections 340 ; plaintiffsAffidavit in Support 341 ; plaintiffs Objections 345 ; plaintiffs Memo in Support 346 ; plaintiffs Declaration 347 ; plaintiffs Objections 351 ; plaintiffs Memo in Support 352 ; plaintiffs Affidavit in Support 353 ; plaintiffs Motion 354 ; plaintiffs Memo in Support 355 ; plainti ffs Affidavit in Support 356 ; plaintiffs Objection 363 ; plaintiffs Memo in Support 364 ; plaintiffs Affidavit in Support 365 plaintiffs Certificate of Service 366 . Plaintiffs breach of contract claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all def endants. Defendant Dean Beeson is DISMISSED with prejudice as a defendant in this action. Ms. Brewer shall respond tothe discovery requests that are the subject of plaintiffs Motion to Compel 332 and plaintiffs Motion to Compel 335 within eleven days. Ms. Brewer shall tender payment to plaintiff in the total amount of $9.44 in valid currency or by valid negotiable instrument within thirty days. The Courts order 368 dated February 8, 2012, shall not be amended to direct Ms. Brewer to tender payment in the total amount of $32.28, as opposed to $17.38. Signed on 4/12/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ANTHONY STEVEN WRIGHT, Plaintiff, No. 3:10-cv-06118-PK v. OPINION AND ORDER CYNTHIA MARIE BREWER, et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On February 10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation ( F&R ) [376] in the above-captioned case outlining his recommendations as to several of the parties motions. I adopt the F&R as my own opinion, with one minor change as discussed below. STANDARD OF REVIEW The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 1 OPINION AND ORDER 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I ADOPT IN PART Magistrate Judge Papak s F&R [376] as my own opinion. Ms. Brewer's Motion to Compel [288] is DENIED without prejudice. Ms. Brewer s Motion to Compel [291] is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff s Motion [308] for extension is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff s Motion [312] to voluntarily dismiss certain of his claims is GRANTED, as stated in the F&R. Plaintiff s Motion to Compel [332] is GRANTED. Plaintiff s Motion to Compel [335] is GRANTED. Plaintiff s Motion for Extension of Time [359] is GRANTED. The following documents are STRICKEN from the docket and shall be returned to the filing party: Ms. Brewer s Motion to Strike Order or Make Payment for Order for Payment of Copy and Mail Fees [285]; Ms. Brewer s Memo in Support [286]; Ms. Brewer s Affidavit in Support [287]; Ms. Brewer s Notice [295]; Ms. Brewer s Notice [296]; plaintiff s Notice [300]; plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment [305]; plaintiff s Memo in Support [306]; plaintiff s Objections [314]; plaintiff s Memo in Support [315]; plaintiff s Affidavit in Support [316]; plaintiff s Objection [322]; plaintiff s Memo in Support [323]; plaintiff s Affidavit in Support [324]; plaintiff s Objection [326]; plaintiff s Memo in Support [327]; plaintiff s Affidavit in Support [328]; plaintiff s Objection [329]; plaintiff s Memo in Support [330]; plaintiff s Affidavit in Support [331]; plaintiff s Objections [339]; plaintiff s Memo of Objections [340]; plaintiff s Affidavit in Support [341]; plaintiff s Objections [345]; plaintiff s Memo in Support [346]; plaintiff s Declaration [347]; plaintiff s Objections [351]; plaintiff s Memo in Support [352]; plaintiff s Affidavit in Support [353]; plaintiff s Motion [354]; plaintiff s Memo in Support [355]; 2 OPINION AND ORDER plaintiff s Affidavit in Support [356]; plaintiff s Objection [363]; plaintiff s Memo in Support [364]; plaintiff s Affidavit in Support [365] plaintiff s Certificate of Service [366]. Plaintiff s breach of contract claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all defendants. Defendant Dean Beeson is DISMISSED with prejudice as a defendant in this action. Ms. Brewer shall respond to the discovery requests that are the subject of plaintiff s Motion to Compel [332] and plaintiff s Motion to Compel [335] within eleven days. Ms. Brewer shall tender payment to plaintiff in the total amount of $9.44 in valid currency or by valid negotiable instrument within thirty days. The Court s order [368] dated February 8, 2012, shall not be amended to direct Ms. Brewer to tender payment in the total amount of $32.28, as opposed to $17.38. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 12th day of April, 2012. /s/ Michael W. Mosman _____ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court 3 OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.