Summary
allowing breach of contract claim because student handbook included express signature requirement for each student
Summary of this case from Dehen v. DoeOpinion
09-CV-305-PK.
April 8, 2010
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#56) on January 29, 2010, in which he recommends this Court grant in part and deny in part the Motion (#25) for Summary Judgment by Defendants De Paul Treatment Centers, Inc., Mary Ellen Langston, and Melissa Owens (DePaul Defendants). The Magistrate Judge also recommends this Court deny Plaintiff Barabara Dauven's Motion (#31) for Partial Summary Judgment in its entirety. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983) (rev'd on other grounds). See also Lorin Corp. v. Goto Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#56). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS DePaul Defendants' Motion (#25) for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiffs' Thirteenth Claim for cutrageous conduct and DENIES the Motion with respect to Plaintiffs' Twelfth Claim for wrongful interference with economic advantage. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff Barbara Dauven's Motion (#31) for Partial Summary Judgment in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 7th day of April, 2010.