Maxwell v. Kelly Services, Inc.

Full title: DIANA MAXWELL, Plaintiff, v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., Defendant

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

Date published: Jul 7, 2010

09-CV-405-PK (D. Or. Jul. 7, 2010)

Opinion

09-CV-405-PK.

July 7, 2010

CRAIG A CRISPIN, Crispin Employment Lawyers, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

CLAY D. CREPS, KRISTA N. HARDWICK, JOCELYNNE P. MCADORY, Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant.

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District JudgePage 2

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#49) on May 26, 2010, in which he recommends this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#36). 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 de novo. Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9^th Cir. 1983). See also Lorin Corp. v. Goto Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8^th Cir. 1983). 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 (#49). Accordingly, the Court:

1. GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#36) as to Plaintiff's First Claim to the extent that Plaintiff alleges Defendant's failure to reinstate Plaintiff constituted pregnancy discrimination.

2. DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#36) as to Plaintiff's First Claim to the extent that she alleges Defendant's removal of Plaintiff from Merix constituted pregnancy discrimination.

3. DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#36) as to Plaintiff's Second, Third, and Fourth Claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.