G.B. v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon

Full title: G.B., Plaintiff, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, an Oregon…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 18, 2002

Civil No. 01-1437-AS (D. Or. Apr. 18, 2002)

Opinion

Civil No. 01-1437-AS

April 18, 2002

Michael Morey, MICHAEL S. MOREY, Lake Oswego, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Karen O'Kasey, Thomas V. Dulcich, SCHWABE WILLIAMSON WYATT, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.

ORDER

ROBERT E. JONES, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed Amended Findings and Recommendation (#26) on February 11, 2002, 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).

Defendants have timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's Amended Findings and Recommendation (#26) dated February 11, 2002, in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion (#5) to remand is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.