Opinion
Civil No. 07-10-AS.
September 13, 2007
A. E. Bud Bailey, James D. Pinney, Karen A. Moore, BAILEY PINNEY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Columbia Tech Center, Vancouver, WA, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Andrea D. Coit, Sharon A. Rudnick, HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK, PC, Eugene, OR.
Joshua B. Waxman, W. Randolph Teslik, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER FELD, LLP, Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Defendant.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed Findings and Recommendation (#55) on July 24, 2007, 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 timely filed objections. I have, therefore, givende novo review of Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's rulings.
I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's Findings and Recommendation (#55) dated July 23, 2007, in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion (#10) to remand is granted. Plaintiff's motions (#19 and #46) to strike are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.