Committe v. AACSB International et al, No. 3:2020cv00372 - Document 67 (D. Or. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 62 . I Grant Defendant AASCB's Motion to Dismiss 46 and Dismiss AASCB as a defendant from this lawsuit with prejudice. I Grant in Part and Deny in Part Defendant OSU's Motion to Dismiss 50 , as described in Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation. I Dismiss OSU's attorneys as defendants from this lawsuit with prejudice. Any motion to amend the complaint solely against Defen dant OSU or its employees (as opposed to AASCB or OSU's counsel) should conform with Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation 62 and the Court's prior orders, and it shall be filed by May 10, 2021. Failure to do so absent sufficient good cause will result in dismissal of this entire lawsuit with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Signed on 4/9/21 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 4/9/21.) (gm)

Download PDF
Committe v. AACSB International et al Doc. 67 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION BRUCE COMMITTE, Plaintiff, No. 3:20-cv-00372-JR v. OPINION AND ORDER AACSB INTERNATIONAL, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, et al. Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On March 5, 2021, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 62]. In her F. & R., Judge Russo recommends that I grant Defendant AACSB International’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 46] and dismiss AACSB as a defendant from this lawsuit with prejudice. Judge Russo further recommends that I grant in part and deny in part Defendant Oregon State University’s (“OSU”) Motion to Dismiss [ECF 50]. Finally, Judge Russo recommends that I dismiss OSU’s attorneys as defendants from this lawsuit with prejudice. Plaintiff filed Objections [ECF 64], and AACSB filed a Response [ECF 66]. Upon review, I ADOPT Judge Russo’s F. & R. as my own opinion. // // 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding 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, de novo or under 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 part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). // // // // // // // // // // // 2 – OPINION AND ORDER CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo’s recommendations, and I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF 62] as my own opinion. I GRANT Defendant AASCB’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 46] and DISMISS AASCB as a defendant from this lawsuit with prejudice. I GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendant OSU’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 50], as described in Judge Russo’s F. & R. I DISMISS OSU’s attorneys as defendants from this lawsuit with prejudice. Any motion to amend the complaint solely against Defendant OSU or its employees (as opposed to AASCB or OSU’s counsel) should conform with Judge Russo’s F. & R. [ECF 62] and the Court’s prior orders, and it shall be filed by May 10, 2021. Failure to do so absent sufficient good cause will result in dismissal of this entire lawsuit with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ____ 9 day of April, 2021. ________________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge 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.