Davis v. Pacific Saw and Knife Company

Filing 47

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 42 ; Granting Motion for Summary Judgment 24 . This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed on 4/6/09 by Judge Garr M. King. (ljl)

IN T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T DISTRICT OF O R E G O N R A E DAVIS, a n individual, Plaintiff, vs. ) ) )

Civil C a s e No. 08-676-HU ORDER

)
) ) PACIFIC S A W A N D K N I F E C O M P A N Y , ) d b a PACIFICIHOE S A W A N D K N I F E ) C O M P A N Y , a n O r e g o n corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) )

Anthony M c N a m e r Deborah G u m m M c N a m e r a n d Compay, P.C. 920 S. W. T h i r d Avenue, Suite 200 P o r t l a n d , O r e g o n 97204-2534 A t t o r n e y s for P l a i n t i f f

Page 1 - O R D E R

Craig A. Crispin Shelley D. Russell C r i s p i n E m p l o y m e n t Lawyers 500 P l a z a W e s t 9600 S. W. Oak Street P o r t l a n d , O r e g o n 97223 A t t o r n e y s for D e f e n d a n t

KING, J u d g e : The Honorable Denis J. Hubel, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation o n February 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 . The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). P l a i n t i f f h a s filed objections, and defendant has filed a response. W h e n e i t h e r p a r t y o b j e c t s to a n y p o r t i o n o f a m a g i s t r a t e ' s F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n concerning a dispositive motion, the district court must make a de novo determination o f t h a t portion o f the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); McDonnell Douglas Com. 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 o f the issues raised i n t h e objections to the Findings and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n , I find n o e r r o r . A c c o r d i n g l y , I A D O P T J u d g e H u b e l ' s F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n (#18). D e f e n d a n t ' s summary j u d g m e n t i s GRANTED. T h e case is DISMISSED w i t h prejudice.

?7l

Page 2 - O R D E R