Leighton v. Three Rivers Sch. Dist.

Full title: PAUL LEIGHTON, Plaintiff, v. THREE RIVERS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

Date published: Jan 20, 2015

No. 1:12-CV-1275-CL (D. Or. Jan. 20, 2015)

Opinion

No. 1:12-CV-1275-CL

01-20-2015

PAUL LEIGHTON, Plaintiff, v. THREE RIVERS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

PANNER, District Judge

ORDER

:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#62) is adopted. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (#36) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 20 day of January, 2015.

/s/_________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE