Opinion
Civil No. 00-1468-AS
February 7, 2002
ORDER
Magistrate Donald C. Ashmanskas filed his Findings and Recommendation (#70) on October 18, 2001 (the "FR"). The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Defendant has filed objections to the FR. When either party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. See 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).
Having given a de novo review of the issues raised in defendant's objections to the FR, I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT the FR (#70) of Magistrate Ashmanskas. Defendant's motion to compel arbitration (#54) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.