Whitworth v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER: The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on February 17,2009. The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections have been time ly filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Coro. v. Goto & Co., Ltd.. 700 F.2nd 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983); See also Britt V. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (# 23 ). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (# 7 ) is DENIED. Signed on March 5, 2009 by Judge Garr M. King. (eo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R THE DISTRICT OF OREGON LESLIE M. WHITWORTH, Plaintiff,
v.

)
)

)
)
)

Civil Case N o . 0 8 - 9 6 8 - P K ORDER

)

NATIONAL E N T E R P R I S E S Y S T E M S , INC., RUSS DOE, and MICHELLE DOE,

) )
) )

Defendants.
-----------

)
)

E. Clarke Balcom Anthony J. Bonucci Clarke Balcom, PC 13 I 2 S W 16th Avenue, 2nd Floor P o r t l a n d , Oregon 9720 I Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey I. Hasson Davenport & Hasson, LLP 12707 N E Halsey Street P o r t l a n d , Oregon 97230 Attorney for Defendants Page I - O R D E R

KING, Judge: The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on February 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 . The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

neb). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me

o f my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Coro. v. Goto & Co., Ltd .. 700 F.2nd 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983); See also Britt V . Simi Valley Unified School Dis!., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#23). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#7) is denied. DATED this

YcraY of March, 2009.
GARRM.KING U n i t e d States D i s t r i c t J u d g e

(Ii

Page 2 - ORDER