Hill v. Technical Chemical Corp.

Full title: GARY HILL, Plaintiff, v. TECHNICAL CHEMICAL CORP., a Texas corporation…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Sep 26, 2006

Civ. No. 04-3028-CO (D. Or. Sep. 26, 2006)

Opinion

Civ. No. 04-3028-CO.

September 26, 2006

ORDER

OWEN PANNER, District Judge

Magistrate Judge John P. Cooney filed Findings and Recommendation on September 1, 2006. The matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

I have, therefore, given this case de novo review. I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cooney.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Cooney's Findings and Recommendation (#52) is adopted. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (#46) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.