Marquez v. Harper School District No. 66

Full title: JESSICA MARQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. HARPER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 66, a public…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

Date published: Jun 17, 2011

2:09-CV-01254-SU (D. Or. Jun. 17, 2011)

Opinion

2:09-CV-01254-SU.

June 17, 2011

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District JudgePage 2

Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and Recommendation (#51) on March 24, 2011, in which she recommended the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion (#30) for Partial Summary Judgment and grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion (#27) for Summary Judgment on the grounds that genuine issues of material fact exist that preclude summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's claims other than the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9^th Cir. 2003) ( en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9^th Cir. 1988).

I. Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which Plaintiff did not object.

As to the portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which Plaintiff did not object, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9^th Cir. 2003) ( en banc). See also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9^th Cir. 1988). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error in these portions of the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the grounds on which the parties moved for summary judgment.

II. Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which Plaintiff objected.

Plaintiff objects to the Findings and Recommendation "to the extent that the F R conclude that any of defendants' justifications for their actions are legitimate, non-discriminatory justifications, and to the extent that the F R recommend denial of plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on plaintiff's First through Fifth claims for relief."

A. Defendants' legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions.

As noted, Plaintiff objects to the Findings and Recommendation "to the extent that the F R conclude that any of defendants' justifications for their actions are legitimate, non-discriminatory justifications." In her Objections, however, Plaintiff simply reiterates the arguments contained in her Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Moreover, the Court notes the Magistrate Judge's conclusion in this regard merely relates to the applicable burden-shifting analysis the Magistrate Judge was required to apply. The conclusion does not, however, resolve Plaintiff's claims. Indeed, the Magistrate Judge appropriately found many issues of disputed material fact precluding summary judgment. After carefully considering Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Defendants provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for some of their actions, this Court concludes Plaintiff's Objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the grounds on which the parties moved for summary judgment with respect to this issue.

B. Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First through Fifth Claims.

Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First through Fifth Claims because "[P]laintiff's evidence of pretext is overwhelming and warrants summary judgment in [P]laintiff's favor." In her Objections, however, Plaintiff merely reiterates the arguments contained in her Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Again, the Magistrate Judge's analysis merely concludes there remain issues of fact as to pretext. Again, after carefully considering Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that genuine disputes of material fact exist precluding summary judgment on Plaintiff's First through Fifth Claims, this Court concludes Plaintiff's Objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the grounds on which the parties moved for summary judgment with respect to this issue with respect to this issue.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation (#51), DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (#30) for Partial Summary Judgment, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion (#27) for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 16^th day of June, 2011.