McKay v. Albertsons, Inc.

Full title: DARRELL McKAY, an individual, Plaintiff, v. ALBERTSONS, INC., a foreign…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Aug 3, 2006

Civil No. 04-1569-PK (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 04-1569-PK.

August 3, 2006

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

ANCER HAGGERTY, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [56] recommending that defendant Albertsons' Motion for Summary Judgment [31] be denied. Albertsons timely filed objections, and the disputed Findings and Recommendation was referred to this Court for review.

When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, a District Court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9^th Cir. 1981).

The Court has given the file of this case a de novo review, and has also carefully evaluated the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the objections, and the Record of the case.

Defendant Albertsons objected on a number of bases but asserted that Magistrate Papak ignored or overlooked plaintiff's permanent lifting restriction. Plaintiff argued that there are a number of ways he could avoid the specified ICS lifting requirements. See plaintiff's Response [65] at 4

A District Court may affirm a Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations on any other ground supported by the record. See Gemtel Corp. v. Cmty. Redevelopment agency, 23 F.3d 1542, 1546 (9^th Cir. 1994).

The objections are DENIED, and the Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety.