From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boronda v. Moye

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Feb 16, 2012
No. 1: 11-cr-03082 (D. Or. Feb. 16, 2012)

Opinion

No. 1: 11-cr-03082

02-16-2012

MICHAEL A. BORONDA, Plaintiff, v. SARA MOYE and JOSEPHINE COUNTY, Defendants.


ORDER

PANNER, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc.. 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, both parties object to the Report and Recommendation, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that the deduction of $500.03 did not violate the parties' settlement agreement. Regarding defendants' objection, see no reason to address attorney's fees at this time. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#25) is adopted. Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (#4) is denied and defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (#11) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Boronda v. Moye

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Feb 16, 2012
No. 1: 11-cr-03082 (D. Or. Feb. 16, 2012)
Case details for

Boronda v. Moye

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL A. BORONDA, Plaintiff, v. SARA MOYE and JOSEPHINE COUNTY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Feb 16, 2012

Citations

No. 1: 11-cr-03082 (D. Or. Feb. 16, 2012)