Summary
stating that Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018"does not apply to the employer, but instead applies to the possibility of liability on the part of contracted agents, employees, and the like"
Summary of this case from McLean v. Pine Eagle Sch. Dist.Opinion
06-CV-1834-ST.
September 12, 2008
PAUL B. MEADOWBROOK, Albany, OR.
WILLIAM D. BRANDT, Salem, OR. Attorneys for Plaintiff.CALVIN L. KEITH, RENEE E. STARR, Perkins Coie, LLP, Portland, OR.
Monica G. Cockerille, Boise, ID, Attorneys for Defendant.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation (#61) on July 7, 2008, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#25) and enter a Judgment in this matter. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 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). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988).
This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#61) and, therefore, GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#25) and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.