Summary
granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim that Defendant retaliated against him by assigning him from woodworking to the laminate area because beyond his testimony that he was "`unhandy,'" he "provided no evidence to support a finding that a reasonable employee would find the change to be materially adverse"
Summary of this case from Wilson v. StateOpinion
Civil Case No. 05-1728-PK.
January 9, 2008
Daniel Snyder, Matthew Lackey, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Paul Buchanan, P.K. Runkles-Pearson, Stoel Rives, LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendant.
ORDER
The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on December 5, 2007. Defendant filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, 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). This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the Summary Judgment rulings of Magistrate Judge Papak.
This court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Papak dated December 5, 2007 in its entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that A-Dec's Motion for Summary Judgment (#31) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.