G.C. v. North Clackamas School District et al, No. 3:2007cv00686 - Document 68 (D. Or. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 49 ; Adopting Findings and Recommendation 59 ; GRANTING Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 24 as to the individual defendants on the Title IX claim, DENY summary judgment as to defendant District on the Title IX claim, and GRANT summary judgment as to the section 1983 claims as to all defendants.. Signed on 8/21/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (ljl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON G.C., an incapacitated person by and through her duly appointed conservator, KENNETH E. COUNTS, No. CV 07-686-HU Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. NORTH CLACKAMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the state of Oregon, RON NASO, JAN MINER, and ANGELA TUCKER, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On February 5, 2009, and June 25, 2009, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued Findings and Recommendations ("F&Rs") (## 49, 59) in the above-captioned case recommending that I GRANT defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#24) as to the individual defendants on the Title IX claim, DENY summary judgment as to defendant District on the Title IX claim, and GRANT summary judgment as to the section 1983 claims as to all defendants. Plaintiff (#65) and defendants (#60) filed Objections to the F&Rs. DISCUSSION 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, PAGE 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 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, 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 of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendations, and I ADOPT the F&Rs (## 49, 59) as my own opinions. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 21st day of August, 2009. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court PAGE 2 - 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.
