Peter O. Hansen, Law Office of Peter O. Hansen, Portland, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Gregory J. Miner, Bateman Seidel Miner Blomgren, Chellis & Gram, PC, Portland, OR, Attorney for Defendant.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation (#35) on June 27, 2013, in which he recommends that the Court should grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, 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 the objections do not provide a basis to modify the 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 Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (#35). Therefore, Defendant's motion (#15) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: in count one, the negligence per se violations under ORS § 654.010 and 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.20(b), ...