Feightner v. Asset Sys., Inc.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

Joshua R. Trigsted
Trigsted Law Group, P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiff Jeffrey I. Hasson
Davenport & Hasson, LLP

Attorney for Defendant HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [35] on February 12, 2014, in which she recommends that the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [19]. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me 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); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation [35]. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [19] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge