Legal Opinion
Dvorak v. Clean Water Services
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided May 26, 2006No. CIV. 04-1384-HUPublished
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
HAGGERTY, Chief Judge.
In his Findings and Recommendation k [65] dated March 20, 2006, Magistrate Judge Hubei recommended granting defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [22]. Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The Findings and Recommendation was referred to this court on May 5, 2006.
When a 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’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Commodore Business MacHines Inc. And Commodore Business MacHines (Canada) LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.