Dixon v. Sentinel Insurance Company

Full title: STEVEN R. DIXON, Plaintiff, v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

Date published: May 10, 2010

Civil Case No. 09-1091-PK (D. Or. May. 10, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 09-1091-PK.

May 10, 2010

Michael T. Wise, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Francis J. Maloney III, Beth Cupani, Maloney Lauersdorf Reiner, P.C., Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendant.

ORDER

GARR KING, District JudgePage 2

The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on April 8, 2010. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b);McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied. 455 U.S. 920 (1982). This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Papak.

This court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Papak (#22) dated April 8, 2010 in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sentinel's Motion for Summaty Judgment (#9) is granted. Dixon's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (#14) is denied. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 10 day of May, 2010.