Deweese v. Cascade General Shipyard

Full title: LARRY DEWEESE and HOLLIS STRICKLAND Plaintiff, v. CASCADE GENERAL…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

Date published: Aug 1, 2011

3:08-CV-860-JE (D. Or. Aug. 1, 2011)

Opinion

3:08-CV-860-JE.

August 1, 2011

PAUL M. OSTROFF, Lane Powell, PC, Portland, OR, P.K. RUNKLES-PEARSON, VICTOR JOSEPH KISCH, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

OPINION AND ORDER

MALCOLM MARSH, Senior District JudgePage 2

On May 9, 2011, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued a Findings and Recommendation (#96) recommending Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#52) be granted in part and denied in part. The matter is before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

If any party objects to any part of a Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must review that part of de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Plaintiffs and Defendant filed timely objections to parts of the Findings and Recommendation. On de novo review, I concur in each of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and his Recommendation and, therefore, I ADOPT his Findings and Recommendation (#96).

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#52) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth therein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.