Filed: Jun. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER ANN AIKEN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 40) recommending that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc 24.) should be granted. The matter is now before me. See 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 F&R, the district comt must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1
Summary: ORDER ANN AIKEN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 40) recommending that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc 24.) should be granted. The matter is now before me. See 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 F&R, the district comt must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)..
More
ORDER
ANN AIKEN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 40) recommending that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc 24.) should be granted. The matter is now before me. See 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 F&R, the district comt 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 filed timely objections to the F&R (doc. 42), and defendant filed a timely response those objections (doc. 43). Thus, I review the F&R de novo.
Having considered the record and the arguments offered by the pmiies, I find no error in Magistrate Judge Clarke's well-reasoned analysis. I hold that Judge Clarke conectly applied the standard for granting summary judgment in this case. Further, I agree with Judge Clarke that defendant met its burden to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging plaintiff and that plaintiff failed to show that these reasons were pretext for discrimination. Thus, I adopt the F&R (doc. 40) in its entirety. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The request for oral argument is denied as unnecessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
