Mazda Motors of America, Inc. v. Ace

Full title: MAZDA MOTORS OF AMERICA, INC., and INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Aug 15, 2007

Civil Case No. 07-62-HU (D. Or. Aug. 15, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 07-62-HU.

August 15, 2007

Charles S. Jordan, Michelle Buhler, Danielson Harrigan Leyh Tollefson, Seattle, Washington, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

John D. Kimmerlein, Philip R. Lempriere, Keesal, Young Logan, Seattle, Washington, Attorneys for Defendant.

ORDER

GARR KING, District Judge

The Honorable Dennis Hubel, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on July 5, 2007. The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Plaintiffs filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation, and defendant filed a response.

When either party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report.See 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).

Having given a de novo review of the issues raised in the objections to the Findings and Recommendation, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (#24) and I GRANT defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#6).