William Schoen, Respondent, vs. Ronald Olson, Individually and doing business as Olson Auto Frame, Appellant.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996)

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C8-97-1292

Frangena Shannon, petitioner,

Respondent,

vs.

Buddy Ramoo,

Appellant.

 Filed February 10, 1998

 Affirmed

 Schumacher, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. C7-97-100276

Frangena Shannon, P.O. Box 19364, Minneapolis, MN 55419 (pro se respondent)

James C. Selmer, Michael L. Diggs, James Selmer & Associates, P.A., 2120 Dain Bosworth Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and

Schumacher, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 SCHUMACHER, Judge

Appellant Buddy Ramoo challenges the district court's issuance of a harassment restraining order. We affirm.

 FACTS

Respondent Frangena Shannon petitioned the district court for a restraining order prohibiting Buddy Ramoo from engaging in harassment. Shannon and Ramoo worked at the Twin Cities Assembly Plant of Ford Motor Company. Ramoo was Shannon's superior, although he did not directly supervise her. At a hearing before a referee on June 19, 1997, Shannon testified that Ramoo had engaged in harassing conduct in the workplace. The district court referee issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Ramoo from harassing Shannon for one year, and the district court confirmed the order. Ramoo appeals.

 D E C I S I O N

Ramoo appealed directly to this court without seeking independent review by the district court.[1] See Minn. Stat. § 484.70, subd. 7(d) (1996) (a party may request district court review of referee's order or finding within 10 days of notice of the order or finding). A request for independent review by the district court "is in the nature of a motion for amended findings or a new trial" and a party's failure to request district court review will affect the scope of review on appeal. Warner v. Warner, 391 N.W.2d 870, 873 (Minn. App. 1986). Because Ramoo failed to request review of the order by the district court, our review is limited to whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether the findings sustain the conclusions of law. Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 459-60, 246 N.W.2d 565, 569 (1976). The findings and orders of a referee become the findings and orders of the district court when confirmed by the district court. Minn. Stat. § 484.70, subd. 7(c) (1996).

Ramoo argues the district court erred in granting the restraining order because there is insufficient evidence of intent, the findings on specific conduct are erroneous, and the conduct, if it occurred, does not constitute harassment.

A district court may issue a harassment restraining order when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has engaged in harassment. Minn. Stat. § 609.748 (1996). Harassment is

repeated, intrusive, or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another * * *.

 Id. We hold the district court did not err.

Shannon testified about repeated inappropriate intentional conduct by Ramoo, including touching, shouting, and intrusive behavior. This testimony was corroborated by other witnesses. Shannon also testified that Ramoo "inappropriately [took] things from me on my person" and demonstrated for the court how Ramoo "just puts his hand in my pocket" to obtain a pen or a tool.

Based on the record, we conclude the district court could reasonably conclude Ramoo intended to harass Shannon and its findings are supported by the evidence.

  Affirmed.

[ ]1 Ramoo incorrectly asserts that 1996 Minn. Laws ch. 365 precludes district court review of harassment restraining orders issued under Minn Stat. § 609.748. Chapter 365 applies to "family, probate, and juvenile court matters, other than delinquency proceedings." This case is not within the purview of Chapter 365.