Frisch v. City of Eugene, Lane County

Full title: DEBORAH FRISCH, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF EUGENE, LANE COUNTY, CITY OF…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Feb 23, 2010

Civ. No. 09-6126-TC (D. Or. Feb. 23, 2010)

Opinion

Civ. No. 09-6126-TC.

February 23, 2010

ORDER

ANN AIKEN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on January 7, 2010 (doc. 114). The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981),cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de novo review. I ADOPT the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 114) that defendants City of Springfield and Weaver's motion for summary judgment (doc. 45) is granted. Further, plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) request is denied. Defendants City of Springfield and Robert Weaver are dismissed from this lawsuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.