Legal Opinion
Fredrickson v. Starbucks Corp.
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided October 29, 2013No. 3:13-cv-00029-HUPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
MARSH, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Hubei filed his Findings and Recommendation on August 28, 2013. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(b).
When a 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)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920, 102 S.Ct. 1277, 71 L.Ed.2d 461 (1982); accord Dawson…
2Cases cited58 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. Jose Francisco Reyna-Tapia, AKA Jose ReynaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Marshall v. Pollin Hotels II, LLCDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2016