Opinion

Holloway v. Clackamas River Water

Court
District Court, D. Oregon
Filed
Sep 10, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.7%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PATRICIA HOLLOWAY, No. 3:13-cv-01787-AC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

CLACKAMAS RIVER WATER; DEAN

MARK PHILLIPS; KATHERINE KEHOE;

BARBARA KEMPER; CINDI LEWIS-

WOLFRAM; MICHAEL CARDWELL;

VANCE VOYLES; LARRY SOWA;

KENNETH HUMBERTSON; HUGH

KALANI; SPECIAL DISTRICTS

ASSOCIATION OF OREGON; FRANK

STRATTON; JENS JENSEN; DOUG

ANDERSON; TAMSEN LEACHMAN;

CLACKAMAS RIVER WATER BOARD

OF COMMISSIONERS; DAVID McNEEL;

NAOMI ANGIER; WILLIAM BLANAS;

SHERRY FRENCH; LEE E. MOORE, SR.;

SPECIAL DISTRICTS INSURANCE

SERVICES,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [ECF 148] on April 24,

2020, in which he recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [ECF 104,

120]. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.

Pl. Obj., ECF 152. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &

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 there is no

basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent

portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &

Recommendation.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation [ECF

148]. Therefore, Defendants’ motions to dismiss [ECF 104, 120] are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s First

Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed with prejudice, and her state-law claims are dismissed

without prejudice to allow pursuit of such claims in state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____S_e_p_t_e_m__b_e_r _1_0_,_ 2_0__2_0__.

___________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.