Opinion
Civil No. 06-1359-AC.
April 1, 2008
Jay A. Williamson, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Office of the Solicitor, Seattle, WA.
Neil J. Evans, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Portland, OR.
James R. O'Connell, Keith R. Bolek, Sally M. Tedrow, O'DONOGHUE O'DONOGHUE LLP, Washington, D.C.
Stephen H. Buckley, BROWNSTEIN RASK SWEENEY KERR GRIM DeSYLVIA HAY, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed Findings and Recommendation (#69) on December 6, 2007, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 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 Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report.See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981),cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
Defendant has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, givende novo review of Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's rulings.
I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's Findings and Recommendation (#69) dated December 5, 2007, in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion (#26) for summary judgment is granted. Accordingly, the defendant's motion (#28) for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff's request for a new election for the offices of President and Business Manager is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.