From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. Schubert

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Aug 3, 2015
No 3:14-cv-01027-ST (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015)

Opinion

No 3:14-cv-01027-ST

08-03-2015

KELLY J. RICHARDSON, and JAMES POWELL, personally and as next friend for I.R., a minor, and S.P., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. EMILIE SCHUBERT, in her individual capacity, GINGER VAN WINKLE, in her individual capacity, ERIN WIRTZ, in her individual capacity, JENNIE SMITH, in her individual capacity, KRISTIN LEMON, in her individual capacity, CARLOS CRUTCH, in his individual capacity, LINDSEY VERNOOY, in her individual capacity, DANIELLE SANTILI-DAY, in her individual capacity, Defendants.


ORDER :

Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [84] on June 5, 2015, in which she recommends that this Court deny in part and grant in part the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Wirtz, Smith, Lemon, Crutch, Vernooy, and Santili-Day, (collectively, "Oregon Defendants"). The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

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).

I have carefully considered Plaintiffs' and Oregon Defendants' objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation [84]. Accordingly, Oregon Defendants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment [58] is denied as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim based on Defendant Wirtz's and Defendant Smith's prosecutorial conduct which resulted in issuance of the initial protective order by the Oregon court on June 26, 2012. The Motion is otherwise granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 3 day of August, 2015.

/s/_________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Richardson v. Schubert

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Aug 3, 2015
No 3:14-cv-01027-ST (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015)
Case details for

Richardson v. Schubert

Case Details

Full title:KELLY J. RICHARDSON, and JAMES POWELL, personally and as next friend for…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Aug 3, 2015

Citations

No 3:14-cv-01027-ST (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015)

Citing Cases

Patterson v. Miller

However formulated, these elements are strikingly similar, and, perhaps not surprisingly, other district…

Chem-Safe Envtl., Inc. v. Granberg

Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants Bound and Peck violated their constitutional rights when they…