Full title: DEAN W. WARMINGTON and BECKY WARMINGTON, Plaintiffs, v. KEVIN BARRY, et…
Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon
Date published: Aug 4, 2004
Facts
Plaintiffs Dean and Becky Warmington are husband and wife. On December 7, 2001, the plaintiffs were tenants in possession of the residential rental property at 1536 Johnson Avenue in Klamath Falls, Oregon. Between December 5, 2001, and December 9, 2001, they were in the process of moving from this rental home to another home. On December 7, 2001, plaintiffs had several boxes of personal property and other personal possessions, including their two Blue Heeler dogs, an animal carrier, dishes, dog food, and leashes, on the premises of 1536 Johnson, that they had not yet moved to their new residence. (Decl. of Dean Warmington ¶ 3).
The house at 1536 Johnson is two stories in height on the side facing the street and one story on the backside. The house sits back and significantly uphill from the street and sidewalk. During the plaintiffs’ move, plaintiffs kept the window shades pulled and the blinds closed. As a consequence of the slope of the lot, the construction of the house and the blinds, none of the main living areas of the home was visible from the windows accessible to a person standing outside the house or walking around its perimeter. (Decl. of Dean Warmington ¶ 4).
Issue
Decision
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (#30) be denied, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#35) be granted, and this case be dismissed.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until the entry of the district court’s judgment or appealable order. The parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
Also, Read