United States District Court, D. Oregon
April 28, 2015
HILARY ANDRIESIAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
COSMETIC DERMATOLOGY, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant.
MARCO A. HERNNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation  on March 3, 2015, in which she recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss . The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Defendant filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 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 Defendant's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation . Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss  is granted as to the alleged violations of ORS 646.608(1)(f), (t) and (u) in the First Claim; granted as to the Second Claim; and otherwise denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.