ORDER
ROBERT JONES, District JudgePage 2
Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed Findings and Recommendation (#29) on January 3, 2008, in the above entitled case. 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 a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report.See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, givende novo review of Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's rulings.
I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's Findings and Recommendation (#29) dated January 3, 2008, in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion (#22) to amend his complaint is denied based on the futility of the proposed amendment. Defendants' motion (#19) to dismiss Standard and Plaintiff's second claim for relief under Section 1132(a)(3) and Defendants' motion (#7) to transfer this action to the Northern District of Illinois are granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.