CESAR Y. CATIBAYAN, a U.S. Citizen Plaintiff,
SYCIP GORRES VELAYO & CO. (SGV), a.k.a. SGV/ERNST & YOUNG (SGV/EY), a Philippine Accounting firm, Defendant.
Cesar Y. Catibayan, Vancouver, WA, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Douglas E. Goe, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Portland, OR, Daniel J. Dunne, Jr., ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Seattle, WA, Attorneys for Defendant.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation (dkt. #49) on August 14, 2013, recommending that Defendant's motion to dismiss (dkt. #11) be granted and Plaintiff's action be dismissed for lack of general and specific jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, as here, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall , 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude that his objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (dkt. #49). Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss (dkt. #11) is granted, and ...