Massey v. Knowles

Full title: JAMES MASSEY and LESLEE BANGS, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM KNOWLES et. al.…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Sep 1, 2006

CV 05-921 PK (D. Or. Sep. 1, 2006)

Opinion

CV 05-921 PK.

September 1, 2006

ORDER

MALCOLM MARSH, Senior District Judge

Magistrate Judge Papak filed his Findings and Recommendation in this case on July 19, 2006 (#56). 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 the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report.See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Petitioner filed timely objections. Therefore, I have given the file of this case a de novo review.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation (#56) of Magistrate Judge Papak, GRANTING Respondent/Garnishee, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA's Motion for Summary Judgment (#34) and GRANTING Petitioners' Motion to Strike (#50).

IT IS SO ORDERED.