Smith v. City of Astoria

Full title: EDITA M. SMITH and EMERALD HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Feb 9, 2015

3:13-CV-00716-PK (D. Or. Feb. 9, 2015)

Opinion

3:13-CV-00716-PK

02-09-2015

EDITA M. SMITH and EMERALD HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ASTORIA, Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.

ORDER

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#69) on December 17, 2014, in which he recommends the Court grant Defendant's Constructive Motion (#10) for Summary Judgment,¹ dismiss Plaintiffs' due-process and equal-protection claims with prejudice, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims, and dismiss Plaintiffs' state-law claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs 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).

1 On October 28, 2013, Magistrate Judge Papak construed Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as a Motion for Summary Judgment per stipulation by the parties.

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 Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9^th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9^th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

This Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs' Objections and concludes they 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 Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#69) and, therefore,

(1) GRANTS Defendant's Constructive Motion (#10) for Summary Judgment,



(2) DISMISSES Plaintiffs' due-process and equal-protection

claims with prejudice,



(3) DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs' state-law claims, and



(4) DISMISSES Plaintiffs' state-law claims without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9^th day of February, 2015.

/s/_________

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge