HARDY v. USF REDDAWAY, INC.

Full title: NATHANIEL HARDY, Plaintiff, v. USF REDDAWAY, INC., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: May 21, 2004

Civil No. 02-1109-AS (D. Or. May. 21, 2004)

Opinion

Civil No. 02-1109-AS.

May 21, 2004

David H. Griggs, Patricia M. Pascone, DOLAN GRIGGS McCULLOCH, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Jennifer L. Bouman, Richard R. Meneghello, FISHER PHILLIPS, LLC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant.

ORDER

ROBERT JONES, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed Findings and Recommendation (#84) on April 7, 2004, in the above entitled case. 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 a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report.See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Defendant has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, givende novo review of Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's Findings and Recommendation (#84) dated April 7, 2004, in its entirety. Defendant's motion (#49) for summary judgment is denied and defendant's motion (#76) to strike is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.