Davis v. Pacific Saw Knife Company

Full title: RAE DAVIS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC SAW AND KNIFE COMPANY, dba…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 6, 2009

Civil Case No. 08-676-HU (D. Or. Apr. 6, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 08-676-HU.

April 6, 2009

Anthony McNamer, Deborah Gumm, McNamer and Compay, P.C., Portland, Oregon, ttorneys for Plaintiff.

Craig A. Crispin, Shelley D. Russell, Crispin Employment Lawyers, Portland, Oregon, ttorneys for Defendant.

ORDER

GARR KING, District Judge

The Honorable Denis J. Hubel, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on February 12, 2009. The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Plaintiff has filed objections, and defendant has filed a response.

When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Having given a de novo review of the issues raised in the objections to the Findings and Recommendation, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (#18). Defendant's summary judgment is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice.