COLEMAN v. PLUMBING PIPEFITTING OF THE U.S. CANADA

ANCER HAGGERTY, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Jelderks referred to this court an Amended Findings and Recommendation in this action (doc. # 66). The Amended Findings and Recommendation recommends that defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 30) should be granted as to plaintiff's disparate impact claim, and denied as to plaintiff's disparate treatment claim.

The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation of the Magistrate. Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974).

No clear error appears on the face of the record. I adopt the Magistrate Judge's Amended Findings and Recommendation (doc. # 66). Accordingly, defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 30) is hereby granted as to plaintiff's disparate impact claim, and denied as to plaintiff's disparate treatment claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.