Opinion
Civil Case No. 05-1729-PK.
August 29, 2007
Thane W. Tienson, Landye Bennett Blumstein, LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey P. Chicoine, Newcomb, Sabin, Schwartz Landsverk, LLP, Portland, Oregon, Clemens H. Barnes, Graham Dunn, PC, Seattle, Washington, Thomas K. Doyle, Bennett Hartman Morris Kaplan, LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on July 17, 2007. `The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. 5 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 720)). Defendant Pacific Maritime Association ("PMA") has filed objections, and plaintiff has filed a response. In addition, PMA has filed a Motion to Reconsider Magistrate's Ruling Denying Motion to Strike Katzen Declaration (#79).
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 Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#76) and I GRANT in part and DENY in part PIVIA'S Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, PMA is granted judgment on all claims other than plaintiffs Second and Fourth Claims for Relief based on disparate treatment arising out of the 2003 walking boss selection process.
As for PMA's Motion for Reconsideration, the district court "may reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Neither of these grounds exist here. Therefore, I deny PMA's Motion for Reconsideration (#79).