Opinion
CIV-S-06-2076 FCD GGH PS.
January 16, 2008
ORDER
On November 20, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on December 10, 2007, and they were considered by the district judge.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. SeeOrand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 20, 2007, are ADOPTED; and
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's first claim, age discrimination in hiring in violation of the ADEA, shall proceed against Vinotheque only; defendant Tanner is dismissed. Plaintiff's second claim, based on a theory of retaliation in violation of the ADEA, is dismissed as to both defendants. Plaintiff's third claim, intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to state law, shall proceed against both defendants.