United States District Court, D. Oregon
MICHAEL G. SCHWERN, Plaintiff,
NÓIRÍN PLUNKETT, Defendant.
Bear Wilner-Nugent, Counselor & Attorney at Law LLC, Portland, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Erin K. Olson, Law Office of Erin Olson, PC, Portland, OR, Attorney for Defendant
MARCO A. HERNNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation  on April 22, 2014, in which he recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion to strike pursuant to ORS § 31.150. 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 Papak's Findings and Recommendation . Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to strike  pursuant to ORS § 31.150 is denied and ...