Premier Automation Contractors, Inc. v. Everest National Insurance Company, 3:19-cv-00220-AC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20191210f42
Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (#23) on October 23, 2019, in which he recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend to Complaint. The matter is now before me 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, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. U
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (#23) on October 23, 2019, in which he recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend to Complaint. The matter is now before me 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, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. Un..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (#23) on October 23, 2019, in which he recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend to Complaint. The matter is now before me 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, I am relieved of my 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, I find no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation [23]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend [11] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
