# Holloway v. Clackamas River Water

> District Court, D. Oregon · September 10, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10392406

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** September 10, 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/10392406

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10392406. Public record. Not legal advice.