Gostevskyh v. Myers ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION BILLY GOSTEVSKYH, No, 6:15-cv-02336-TC ORDER Plaintiff, v. JASON MYERS and MARION COUNTY, a government entity, Defendants. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin has filed his Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”’) (doc. 78) recommending that this Court deny defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 49) This case is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate 1-ORDER judge’s report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 13809, 1813 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Defendants have filed timely objections (doc. 83) to the F&R and plaintiff has filed a timely response to those objections. (doc. 89) Thus, this Court reviews the F&R de novo. Having reviewed the objections, briefing on the motion for summary Judgment, as well as the entire file of this case, the Court finds no error in Judge Coffin’s F&R. Thus, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 78) in its entirely. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 49} is DENIED. ITIS SO ORDERED. Dated this 30 day of September 2019. Oe. Aen □ AnmnAiken United States District Judge ORDER