Davico v. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals

Full title: ALDO DAVICO, JR., Plaintiff, v. GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, a…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Oct 9, 2007

Civ. No. 05-6052-TC (D. Or. Oct. 9, 2007)

Opinion

Civ. No. 05-6052-TC.

October 9, 2007

ORDER

ANN AIKEN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on August 2, 2007. 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).

Plaintiff 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. 109) that defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 62) is granted and this case is dismissed. Further, the court declines to consider new evidence, nor allow the plaintiff to conduct additional discovery. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9^th Cir. 2000; and the record before this court detailing the discovery process before Judge Coffin.

IT IS SO ORDERED.