Dickson v. McMenamins, Inc., No. 3:2018cv00317 - Document 38 (D. Or. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F & R 34 as my own opinion. Defendant's motion to dismiss 12 is DENIED. Defendant's motion for monetary sanctions 12 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's attorney will reimburse Defendant for costs incurred as a result of the discovery violation as set forth in the F & R. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 1/17/2019 by Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

Download PDF
Dickson v. McMenamins, Inc. Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION VALERIE DICKSON, Plaintiff, No. 3:18-cv-00317-AC V. OPINION AND ORDER McMENAMINS, INC., Defendant. MOSMAN,J., On December 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [34], recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and for Sanctions [12] should be GRANTED in paii and DENIED in part. Neither party filed objections to the F&R. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The comi 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 regarding those pmiions of the repmi or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [34] as my own opinion. Defendant's motion to dismiss [12] is DENIED. Defendant's motion for monetary sanctions [12] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's attorney will reimburse Defendant for costs incurred as a result of the discovery violation as set forth in the F &R. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this _ilaay of January, 2019. Chief United 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.