# Ariston v. United States Postal Service

> District Court, D. Oregon · September 26, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10396467

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** September 26, 2023
- **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/10396467

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LENA ARISTON, No. 3:21-CV-01669-HL

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE;
LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General of the
United States; and UNITED STATES MERIT
SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Andrew Hallman issued a Findings and Recommendation on August 1,
2023, in which he recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss. F&R, ECF 41. 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 and Recommendation.
Pl. Obj., ECF 43. 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 there is no
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 in full Magistrate Judge Hallman’s Findings and Recommendation
[41]. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF 31] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. Plaintiff’s fourth claim for relief, alleging discrimination based on age, is DISMISSED
without prejudice. Plaintiff’s second, fifth, and sixth claims for relief, alleging hostile work

environment and constructive discharge, are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s seventh
claim for relief, alleging a failure to act, is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _____S__e_p_te__m_b_e_r_ _2_6_, _2_0_2_3_.

___________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10396467. Public record. Not legal advice.