From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. City of Portland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jun 7, 2018
No. 3:12-cv-1222-AC (D. Or. Jun. 7, 2018)

Opinion

No. 3:12-cv-1222-AC

06-07-2018

ROBERTA F. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, et al., Defendants.


ORDER :

Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (#67) on April 27, 2018, in which he recommends that this Court grant in party and deny in part Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation [67]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees [40] is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is awarded $6,000 in attorney's fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 7 day of June, 2019.

/s/_________

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Miller v. City of Portland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jun 7, 2018
No. 3:12-cv-1222-AC (D. Or. Jun. 7, 2018)
Case details for

Miller v. City of Portland

Case Details

Full title:ROBERTA F. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jun 7, 2018

Citations

No. 3:12-cv-1222-AC (D. Or. Jun. 7, 2018)