From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. City of Portland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Aug 18, 2014
No. 3:12-cv-01222-AC (D. Or. Aug. 18, 2014)

Opinion

No. 3:12-cv-01222-AC

08-18-2014

ROBERTA F. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, et al., Defendants.


ORDER HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings & Recommendation [52] on June 10, 2014, recommending that Plaintiff Roberta Miller's Motion for Attorney Fees [40] be denied. Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation [52], and therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees [40] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 18 day of Aug, 2014.

/s/_________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Miller v. City of Portland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Aug 18, 2014
No. 3:12-cv-01222-AC (D. Or. Aug. 18, 2014)
Case details for

Miller v. City of Portland

Case Details

Full title:ROBERTA F. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Aug 18, 2014

Citations

No. 3:12-cv-01222-AC (D. Or. Aug. 18, 2014)