From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bilyeu v. City of Portland

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Nov 10, 2008
Civil Case No. 06-1299-AC (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 06-1299-AC.

November 10, 2008

Rankin Johnson, Portland, Oregon.

Benjamin Wright Haile, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

J. Scott Moede, City of Portland, City Attorney's Office, Portland, Oregon.

Robert S. Wagner, Miller Wagner, LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendants.


ORDER


The Honorable John V. Acosta, United States Magistrate Judge, filed an Order on Motion to Compel on October 8, 2008. The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2nd 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983); See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Acosta's Order on Motion to Compel (#45). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant City of Portland's Motion to Compel (#39) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff Archie Martin Bilyeu is directed to provide answers to Interrogatories 10 and 14 within 14 days of the date of this Order. City of Portland's request for an award of attorney fees in bringing its motion to compel is granted, and Bilyeu's attorneys of record are directed to pay $280.00 to the City of Portland within 21 days of this Order.


Summaries of

Bilyeu v. City of Portland

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Nov 10, 2008
Civil Case No. 06-1299-AC (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2008)
Case details for

Bilyeu v. City of Portland

Case Details

Full title:ARCHIE MARTIN BILYEU, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Nov 10, 2008

Citations

Civil Case No. 06-1299-AC (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2008)

Citing Cases

Franklin Fueling Systems, Inc. v. Veeder-Root Company

Thus, no further response is required. 6. The motion to compel further response to Interrogatories 14 and 16…