From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. Brennan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Mar 5, 2018
No. 3:17-CV-00677-SB (D. Or. Mar. 5, 2018)

Summary

noting that the limitations period "begins to run from the date on which a right-to-sue letter is delivered to either the claimant or his attorney, whichever comes first"

Summary of this case from Arata v. Azar

Opinion

No. 3:17-CV-00677-SB

03-05-2018

KIMBERLY MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, U.S. Postmaster General, and UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants.


OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,

On December 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [24], recommending that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [14] should be GRANTED. Plaintiff Kimberly Mitchell objected [26]. Defendants Megan J. Brennan and United States Postal Service responded [27].

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)(1)(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)(1)(C).

Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [24] as my own opinion. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [14] is GRANTED and all claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of March, 2018.

/s/_________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Mitchell v. Brennan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Mar 5, 2018
No. 3:17-CV-00677-SB (D. Or. Mar. 5, 2018)

noting that the limitations period "begins to run from the date on which a right-to-sue letter is delivered to either the claimant or his attorney, whichever comes first"

Summary of this case from Arata v. Azar
Case details for

Mitchell v. Brennan

Case Details

Full title:KIMBERLY MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, U.S. Postmaster…

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

Date published: Mar 5, 2018

Citations

No. 3:17-CV-00677-SB (D. Or. Mar. 5, 2018)

Citing Cases

Arata v. Azar

The Court will follow the guidance of Payan, Rhodes, and Irwin, and find that the limitations period begins…