From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roe v. City of Medford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Nov 30, 2017
Case No. 1:16-cv-00277-CL (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 1:16-cv-00277-CL

11-30-2017

ROBERT ROE, an individual, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF MEDFORD, a municipal corporation, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), ECF No. 48, and the matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R&R, ECF No. 50. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude that the R&R is correct. Magistrate Judge Clarke's R&R is adopted in full. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is therefore GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2017.

/s/ Michael McShane

Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Roe v. City of Medford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Nov 30, 2017
Case No. 1:16-cv-00277-CL (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2017)
Case details for

Roe v. City of Medford

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT ROE, an individual, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF MEDFORD, a municipal…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Nov 30, 2017

Citations

Case No. 1:16-cv-00277-CL (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2017)