Opinion
Civil No. 00-461-AS
May 17, 2001
ORDER
Magistrate Donald C. Ashmanskas filed his Findings and Recommendation (#35) on April 12, 2001 (the "F R") and referred it to me on May 1, 2001. 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'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).
On February 2, 2001, defendant HBE Corporation ("HBE") moved for summary judgment against all claims asserted by plaintiff Karl Ransom (#17). The F R recommends that HBE's motion should be granted with regard to Ransom's first claim for wrongful discharge and his third claim for whistle blowing under ORS 659.550. The F R also recommends that summary judgment should be denied with regard to Ransom's second claim for retaliation under ORS 654.062, but that HBE's alternative motion for partial summary judgment to clarify the available remedies under ORS 654.062 (i.e., that noneconomic and punitive damages are not available and that the claim is not subject to a jury trial) should be granted.
Having given a de novo review of the issues discussed in the F R, and considered Ransom's objections to the Findings and Recommendation, I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT the F R (#35) of Magistrate Ashmanskas. HBE's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part as recommended by Magistrate Ashmanskas and summarized above. Ransom may proceed on his second claim in accordance with the limitations set forth in the F R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.