Margolis v. Tektronix, Inc.

Full title: SUE MARGOLIS, Plaintiff, v. TEKTRONIX, INC., an Oregon corporation…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Nov 9, 2000

CV 99-345-AS (D. Or. Nov. 9, 2000)

Opinion

CV 99-345-AS

November 9, 2000

ORDER

OWEN M. PANNER, U.S. District Judge

Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed his Findings and Recommendation on September 27, 2000. 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 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)(C); 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 filed timely objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de novo review. I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's Findings and Recommendation. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (#55) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.