From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waggoner v. Am. Med. Response Nw.

United States District Court, District of Oregon
Mar 20, 2024
3:23-cv-01518-SB (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2024)

Opinion

3:23-cv-01518-SB

03-20-2024

JULIE WAGGONER, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE NORTHWEST, INC., Defendant.

Caroline Janzen, Janzen Legal Services, LLC, 4550 SW Hall Blvd, Beaverton, OR 97005. Attorney for Plaintiff. Colleen O. Munoz and John A. Berg, Littler Mendelson, PC, 1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 2050, Portland, OR 97201. Attorneys for Defendant.


Caroline Janzen, Janzen Legal Services, LLC, 4550 SW Hall Blvd, Beaverton, OR 97005. Attorney for Plaintiff.

Colleen O. Munoz and John A. Berg, Littler Mendelson, PC, 1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 2050, Portland, OR 97201. Attorneys for Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING JUDGE BECKERMAN'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

KARIN J. IMMERGUT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

No objections have been filed in response to Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 13. Following clear error review, this Court ADOPTS the F&R.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge's F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R that are not objected to. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

CONCLUSION

No objections to the F&R have been filed. Judge Beckerman's F&R, ECF 13, is adopted in full. This Court GRANTS Defendant American Medical Response Northwest, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 6. Plaintiff Waggoner is permitted to file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Waggoner v. Am. Med. Response Nw.

United States District Court, District of Oregon
Mar 20, 2024
3:23-cv-01518-SB (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2024)
Case details for

Waggoner v. Am. Med. Response Nw.

Case Details

Full title:JULIE WAGGONER, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE NORTHWEST, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, District of Oregon

Date published: Mar 20, 2024

Citations

3:23-cv-01518-SB (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2024)