Ayars v. AutoZoners, LLC ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JENNIFER AYARS, Case No. 3:21-cv-01537-YY Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING JUDGE YOU’S FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATION AUTOZONERS, LLC,* Defendant. Daniel Snyder and Paul Bastian, Law Offices of Daniel Snyder, 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400, Portland, OR 97205. Attorneys for Plaintiff. Shane P. Swilley and Amber A. Beyer, Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP, 900 SW Fifth Ave., 24th Floor, Portland, OR 97204. Tracy E. Kern, Jones Walker, 201 St. Charles Ave., 47th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70170. Laurie M. Riley, Jones Walker, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3000, Miami, FL 33131. Attorneys for Defendant. IMMERGUT, District Judge. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 44, to which Plaintiff objected. For the following reasons, this Court ADOPTS Judge You’s F&R. * Plaintiff incorrectly refers to Defendant as AutoZone Parts, Inc. Answer, ECF 14 at 2. LEGAL STANDARDS Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R that are not objected to. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. CONCLUSION This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge You’s F&R to which Plaintiff objected. Judge You’s F&R, ECF 44, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Strike, ECF 35. This Court also DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 24, as to Plaintiff’s Failure to Accommodate Claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Claims 3 and 4) and the Oregon Rehabilitation Act (Claim 7), but GRANTS the Motion for the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 20th day of February, 2024. /s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge