Oregon Nurses Association v. Providence Health & Services Oregon, No. 3:2021cv01570 - Document 17 (D. Or. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: I agree with Judge Russo's recommendation, and I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF15] as my own opinion. I GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 10] as to Plaintiff'sprocedural arbitrability claim and DENY in all other respects. Signed on 2/9/2022 by Senior Judge Michael W. Mosman. (See attached 2-paged Opinion and Order). (pg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Oregon Nurses Association v. Providence Health & Services Oregon Case 3:21-cv-01570-JR Document 17 Filed 02/09/22 Doc. 17 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION OREGON NURSES ASSOCIATION, No. 3:21-cv-01570-JR Plaintiff, V. OPINION AND ORDER PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES OREGON, Defendant. MOSMAN,J., On January 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F. & R.") [ECF 15]. Judge Russo recommends that I grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 1OJ as to Plaintiffs procedural arbitrability claim and deny in all other respects. Objections were due on February 4, 2022, but none were filed. I agree with Judge Russo. 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 regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:21-cv-01570-JR Document 17 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 2 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, I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF 15] as my own opinion, and I GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 1O] as to Plaintiffs procedural arbitrability claim and DENY in all other respects. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this q ·115 ~ of February, 2022. '! United States District Ju ge 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.
