Johnson et al v. Guardian Management et al, No. 3:2021cv00947 - Document 54 (D. Or. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation (49 in case 3:21-cv-00947-JR; 48 in case 3:21-cv-01439-JR). The Motions for Summary Judgment (44 in case 3:21-cv-00947-JR; 43 in case 3:21-cv-01439-JR) a re Granted and both cases are Dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 9/1/22 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (Associated Cases: 3:21-cv-00947-JR, 3:21-cv-01439-JR) (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 9/2/22.) (gm) Modified on 9/2/2022 to correct file date. (gm)

Download PDF
Johnson et al v. Guardian Management et al Doc. 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION LARRY JOHNSON; MICHELLE HUME, Plaintiffs, V. GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT; KELLY PAINE; LISA SIMONSON, No. 3:21-cv-947-JR (Lead Case) Defendants. MICHELLE HUME; LARRY JOHNSON, OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, V. THOMAS BARRY BRENNEKE JUNIOR; GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT; GUARDIAN REAL ESTATE SERVICE; UPTOWN TOWER APARTMENTS; KELLY PAINE; LISA SIMONSON, No. 3:21-cv-1439-JR (Trailing Case) Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On July 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [ECF 49] 1 recommending that I grant Defendants' Motions for 1 1 All citations are to documents in the lead case. OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Summary Judgment [ECF 44] and dismiss both cases. Plaintiff Larry Johnson filed objections to the F&R on August 8, 2022 [ECF 51]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo. I GRANT the Motions for Summary Judgment and DISMISS both cases. 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)(l )(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)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 49] as my own opinion. The Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF 44] are GRANTED, and both cases are DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5y of September, 2022. 2 - OPINION AND ORDER Senior United States District Judge

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.