Mitchell v. Providence Health Plan

Full title: NICOLE M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH PLAN, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

Date published: Dec 14, 2010

10-CV-267-PK (D. Or. Dec. 14, 2010)

Opinion

10-CV-267-PK.

December 14, 2010

NICOLE M. MITCHELL, Portland, OR, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

AARON T. BALS, ARDEN J. OLSON, Harrang Long Gary Rudnick, PC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant.

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District JudgePage 2

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#41) on October 19, 2010, in which he recommends this Court construe Plaintiff's Motion (#30) for Discovery and/or Inspection to Allow Depositions as a response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order, grant Defendant's Motion (#19) for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claims and Defendant's declaratory relief Counterclaims, deny Defendant's Motion (#19) for Summary Judgment as to Defendant's Fourth Counterclaim for attorneys' fees and costs, grant Plaintiff's Cross-Motion (#28) for Summary Judgment only as to Defendant's Fourth Counterclaim for attorneys' fees, deny Plaintiff's Cross-Motion (#28) for Summary Judgment as to all of Plaintiff's other Claims and Counterclaims, deny as moot Defendant's Motion (#22) for Protective Order, and enter Judgment dismissing this matter with prejudice. 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 (9^th Cir. 1983). See also Lorin Corp. v. Goto Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8^th 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 (#41). Accordingly, the Court:

1. CONSTRUES Plaintiff's Motion (#30) for Discovery and/or Inspection to Allow Depositions as a response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order,

2. GRANTS Defendant's Motion (#19) for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claims and Defendant's declaratory relief Counterclaims,

3. DENIES Defendant's Motion (#19) for Summary Judgment as to Defendant's Fourth Counterclaim for attorneys' fees and costs,

4. GRANTS Plaintiff's Cross-Motion (#28) for Summary Judgment as to Defendant's Fourth Counterclaim for attorneys' fees,

5. DENIES Plaintiff's Cross-Motion (#28) for Summary Judgment as to all of Plaintiff's other Claims and Counterclaims,

6. DENIES as moot Defendant's Motion (#22) for Protective Order, and

7. DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 14^th day of December, 2010.