ABRAHAM v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC.

No. 3:16-cv-01877-PK.

ANDREW ABRAHAM, on behalf of himself, and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Oregon.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Andrew Abraham, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Lee Post , Law Offices of Daniel Snyder.

Andrew Abraham, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Snyder , Law Offices of Daniel Snyder & John D. Burgess , Law Offices of Daniel Snyder.

Corizon Health, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathan D. Sramek , Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt & Anne M. Talcott , Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.


ORDER

ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#16) on April 10, 2017, in which he recommends this Court grant Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.'s Motion (#7) to Dismiss certain claims al by Plaintiff Andrew Abraham pursuant to Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.142. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 (b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record novo. See Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#16). Accordingly, Court GRANTS Defendant Corizon Health's Motion (#7) to Dismiss and DISMISSES with prejudice aintiff's First Claim for Relief under Title II of the ADA, DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief under Title III of the ADA, and DISMISSES without prejudice Plainti's Fourth Claim Relief under Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.142.

This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings as appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases