United States District Court, D. Oregon
April 18, 2014
BILLIE FEIGHTNER, Plaintiff,
ASSET SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.
Joshua R. Trigsted, Trigsted Law Group, P.C., Lake Oswego, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey I. Hasson, Davenport & Hasson, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorney for Defendant.
MARCO A. HERNNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation  on February 12, 2014, in which she recommends that the Court should deny Plaintiff'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 Stewart's Findings and Recommendation . Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment  is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.