Madsen v. Harris

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

JEFF MADSEN, Case No. 1:16-cv-02170-MK ORDER Plaintiff, Vv. JOHN HARRIS doing business as Business Partner Services, Defendant. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 75) recommending that plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 73) be denied. This case is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge’s report. See 28 U.S.C. § 6386(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1813 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S.

Page 1 - ORDER

920 (1982). Plaintiff has filed timely objections (doc. 77) to the F&R. Defendant has filed not response. Thus, this Court reviews the F&R de novo. Having reviewed the objections as well as the entire file of this case, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s F&R. Thus, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 75) in its entirely. Accordingly, plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 73) is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Dated this 30th day of September, 2019.

United States District Judge

Page ORDER