Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Feightner v. Asset Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

April 18, 2014

BILLIE FEIGHTNER, Plaintiff,
v.
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.

ORDER

MARCO A. HERNNDEZ, District Judge.

Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [35] on February 12, 2014, in which she recommends that the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [19]. 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.

CONCLUSION

The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation [35]. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [19] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.