United States v. Carlson, 3:18-cv-01598-AC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20190925e87
Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [43] on August 1, 2019, in which he recommends that the Court deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [39]. 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. Unite
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [43] on August 1, 2019, in which he recommends that the Court deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [39]. 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..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [43] on August 1, 2019, in which he recommends that the Court deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [39]. 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 Acosta's Findings and Recommendation [43]. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [39] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
