From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Elam v. Willamette Ear, Nose, Throat, & Plastic Surgery LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Nov 1, 2012
No. 6:12-cv-1260-TC (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2012)

Opinion

No. 6:12-cv-1260-TC

11-01-2012

TABATHA ELAM, Plaintiff, v. WILLAMETTE EAR, NOSE, THROAT, AND PLASTIC SURGERY LLC, Defendant.


ORDER

AIKEN, Chief Judge:

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on October 5, 2012, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) . 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. See 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 (1982).

Plaintiff has filed objections. I have given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's ruling. I find no error. Accordingly, I adopt Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed October 5, 2012, denying the motions to remand and for sanctions.

CONCLUSION

I adopt Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation (#22) filed October 5, 2012. Plaintiff's motions to remand (#13) and for imposition of sanctions (#15) are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

ANN AIKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Elam v. Willamette Ear, Nose, Throat, & Plastic Surgery LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Nov 1, 2012
No. 6:12-cv-1260-TC (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2012)
Case details for

Elam v. Willamette Ear, Nose, Throat, & Plastic Surgery LLC

Case Details

Full title:TABATHA ELAM, Plaintiff, v. WILLAMETTE EAR, NOSE, THROAT, AND PLASTIC…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Nov 1, 2012

Citations

No. 6:12-cv-1260-TC (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2012)