Summary
rejecting plaintiff's assertion that the Oregon fair housing statute, which is interpreted consistently with the FHA, “is intended to impose a common law duty on housing developments ... to train their employees in fair housing laws.”
Summary of this case from Intermountain Fair Hous. Council v. Tomlinson & Assocs.Opinion
3:08-cv-03127-ST
05-08-2013
FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF OREGON, Plaintiff, v. BROOKSIDE VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, and BRADLEY REALTY, LLC, Defendants.
Joan-Marie Michelsen OREGON LAW CENTER Spencer M. Neal OREGON LAW CENTER State Support Unit Attorneys for Plaintiff James R. Dole DOLE, SORENSON, RANSOM & FERGUSON, LLP Attorney for Defendant
ORDER
Joan-Marie Michelsen
OREGON LAW CENTER
Spencer M. Neal
OREGON LAW CENTER
State Support Unit
Attorneys for Plaintiff James R. Dole
DOLE, SORENSON, RANSOM & FERGUSON, LLP
Attorney for Defendant HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. #146) on October 19, 2012. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's F&R. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo review of that portion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the F&R. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's F&R.
CONCLUSION
The Magistrate Judge's F&R (doc. #146) is ADOPTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge