Opinion
08-CV-507-AC.
October 14, 2008
A.E. BUD BAILEY, J. DANA PINNEY, CHEYENNE K. POWELSON, Bailey Pinney Associates, LLC, Columbia Tech Center, Vancouver, WA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. MITCHELL C. BAKER, SEAN M. DRISCOLL, Fisher Phillips, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#36) on August 20, 2008, in which he recommends the Court grant Plaintiffs' Motion (#12) to Proceed as A Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and order the matter to proceed under conditional certification as set out in the Findings and Recommendation. Defendant filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988).
This Court has carefully considered Defendant's Objections and concludes Defendant's Objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#36), GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion (#12) to Proceed as A Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and ORDERS the action to proceed under conditional certification as set out in the Findings and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.