Legal Opinion
Roth v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided November 5, 2010No. Civ. 09-3089-CLPublished
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
PANNER, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation (“R and R”) [# 27], and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Defendant filed objections [# 32] to the R & R. Plaintiff filed a response [# 34] to defendant’s objections. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this ease de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.1981). I conclude the R & R is correct.
Defendant apparently argues that the R & R erred in rejecting the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Taylor v. ListCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.