# Gale v. SAIF Corporation

> District Court, D. Oregon · February 16, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10391677

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** February 16, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10391677

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

MICHAEL J. GALE,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00707-AC
v.
ORDER
SAIF CORPORATION; MELISSA PIERCE,
Claims Adjuster for SAIF; TIA
LAFONTAINE, Claims Adjuster for SAIF;
BROWN TRANSFER, INC.;
TANASBOURNE PLASTIC SURGERY;
SHELDON R. COBER, M.D.;
PROVIDENCE OCCUPATIONAL
HEALTH HILLSBORO; BEAVERTON
ARMWORKS HAND THERAPY, LLC,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [105] on January 3,
2020, in which he recommends that the Court should grant in part Defendants’ motions to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [88]. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the
Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
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); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections and concludes that the
objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court has
also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation [105].
Therefore, Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss [90, 91, 92, 93, 96] are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: __F__e_b_ru__a_ry_ _1_6_,_ 2_0_2__0_____.

________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10391677. Public record. Not legal advice.