From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

KLAR v. SAFEWAY INCORPORATED

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jul 13, 2001
Civil No. 00-100-AS (D. Or. Jul. 13, 2001)

Opinion

Civil No. 00-100-AS

July 13, 2001

Richard C. Busse, BUSSE HUNT, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff.

Kirk W. Mylander, Lisa C. Brown, MILLER NASH, Portland, OR, for Defendant.


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed Findings and Recommendation on April 25, 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).

Plaintiff has 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 Findings and Recommendation (#37) dated April 24, 2001, in its entirety. Defendant's motion (#24) for summary judgment is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

KLAR v. SAFEWAY INCORPORATED

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jul 13, 2001
Civil No. 00-100-AS (D. Or. Jul. 13, 2001)
Case details for

KLAR v. SAFEWAY INCORPORATED

Case Details

Full title:KATHLEEN KLAR, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY INC., a Delaware corporation…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jul 13, 2001

Citations

Civil No. 00-100-AS (D. Or. Jul. 13, 2001)