Speed v. Adidas America, Inc.

Full title: ANDRE SPEED, Plaintiff, v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 6, 2006

04-CV-1430-PK (D. Or. Apr. 6, 2006)

Opinion

04-CV-1430-PK.

April 6, 2006

CRAIG A. CRISPIN, Portland, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff.

JOSEPH VANCE, CAROL NOONAN, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant.

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#46) on February 16, 2006, in which he recommended the Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#17) and dismiss this matter with prejudice. Plaintiff Andre Speed filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

When any 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). See also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9^th Cir. 1988); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9^th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Because the objecting party did not arrange for the transcription of the record pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) nor did any party protest the lack of a transcript, the Court did not review a transcript or tape recording of the proceedings before the Magistrate Judge as part of the Court's de novo review. See Spaulding v. Univ. of Wash., 686 F.2d 1232, 1235 (9^th Cir. 1982).

This Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#46). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#17) and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.