Bonilla v. Es-O-En Corporation

Full title: LAUREL BONILLA, Plaintiff, v. ES-O-EN CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Nov 16, 2005

Civ. No. 04-6427-TC (D. Or. Nov. 16, 2005)

Opinion

Civ. No. 04-6427-TC.

November 16, 2005

ORDER

ANN AIKEN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on September 19, 2005. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Defendant has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de novo review. I ADOPT the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 53) that defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 29) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.