Opinion
Civil No. 01-906-AS
October 24, 2001
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas filed his Findings and Recommendation on September 12, 2001 in the above entitled case.
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 a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
The plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas' rulings.
I find no error. However, after review of the record, I find that the plaintiff's third claim for relief (wrongful discharge) should be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas' Findings and Recommendation filed on September 12, 2001, except that the plaintiff's third claim for relief is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.