From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Team Electric Company

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jul 27, 2005
No. CV 01-1752-ST (D. Or. Jul. 27, 2005)

Opinion

No. CV 01-1752-ST.

July 27, 2005


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart filed her Findings and Recommendation (docket # 120) on June 17, 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 either party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff has filed objections, which I have carefully studied.

After reviewing the Magistrate Judge's report de novo, I find no error with respect to the controlling legal principles or their application to this case. Plaintiff has pointed to what she believes are errors or omissions in the fact statement. In resolving this case, it is not necessary for me to decide whether Plaintiff is correct. Even if I assume the truth of these additional alleged facts — as opposed to Plaintiff's speculation or her opinion regarding the significance of various events — it would not alter the outcome. Accordingly, any factual dispute is not "material."

I therefore adopt Magistrate Judge Stewart's report. Defendant's motion (# 82) for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff's motion (# 90) for summary judgment is denied.


Summaries of

Davis v. Team Electric Company

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jul 27, 2005
No. CV 01-1752-ST (D. Or. Jul. 27, 2005)
Case details for

Davis v. Team Electric Company

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTIE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. TEAM ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jul 27, 2005

Citations

No. CV 01-1752-ST (D. Or. Jul. 27, 2005)