Summary
interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Summary of this case from Grain Millers, Inc. v. Pacific Flexpak Co.Opinion
Civil No. 07-886-AS.
February 12, 2008
David A. Bryant, DALEY DeBOFSKY BRYANT, Chicago, IL.
Megan E. Glor, Portland, OR.
Michael A. Lopez Moscow, ID.
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Katherine S. Somervell, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY, Portland, OR.
Michael J. Smith Warren S. von Schleicher SMITH von SCHLEICHER ASSOCIATES Chicago, IL.
Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed Findings and Recommendation (#29) on January 3, 2008, 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).
Plaintiff 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 (#29) dated January 3, 2008, in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion (#22) to amend his complaint is denied based on the futility of the proposed amendment. Defendants' motion (#19) to dismiss Standard and Plaintiff's second claim for relief under Section 1132(a)(3) and Defendants' motion (#7) to transfer this action to the Northern District of Illinois are granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.