Cahill v. Nike, Inc., 3:18-cv-01477-JR. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20190521e73
Visitors: 23
Filed: May 16, 2019
Latest Update: May 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [64] on February 26, 2019, in which she recommends the Court deny Defendant's partial motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Class and Collective Action Allegation Complaint. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Rec
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [64] on February 26, 2019, in which she recommends the Court deny Defendant's partial motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Class and Collective Action Allegation Complaint. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Reco..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [64] on February 26, 2019, in which she recommends the Court deny Defendant's partial motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Class and Collective Action Allegation Complaint. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court finds no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation [64]. Accordingly, Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class and Collective Action Allegation Complaint [47] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
