Legal Opinion
Cooley v. Keisling
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided June 9, 1999No. CIV. 98-1115-HUPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
FRYE, District Judge.
The Honorable Dennis James Hubei, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on April 27, 1999. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a 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); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920, 102 S.Ct. 1277, 71 L.Ed.2d 461 (1982).…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Anderson v. CelebrezzeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Williams v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Storer v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Parks School of Business, Inc., Dba Parks College, a New Mexico Corporation v. Fife Symington Roy A. Nicholson Sally HeinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Couey v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
- (PC) Bosley v. Truckee Police DepartmentDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
- Krivolenkov v. YandellDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2023
- Quinn S. Bass v. San Bernardino County Sheriffs Dept.District Court, C.D. California · 2019