Wilken v. Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare, Inc.

Full title: JANETTE M. WILKEN, Plaintiff, v. CASCADIA BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE, INC.…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jan 2, 2008

CV 06-195-ST (D. Or. Jan. 2, 2008)

Opinion

CV 06-195-ST.

January 2, 2008

OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES REDDEN, Senior District Judge

On October 31, 2007, Magistrate Judge Stewart filed her Findings and Recommendation (doc. 145) in the above-captioned case, recommending that plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 128) be granted as to the Fourteenth Affirmative Defense. The matter is now before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The parties did not timely file objections to the Findings and Recommendation. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 145) as my own opinion. Accordingly, plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 128) is GRANTED as to defendant's Fourteenth Affirmative Defense.

IT IS SO ORDERED.