Granillo v. Ethicon LLC, CV-19-00529-TUC-CKJ (MSA). (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20200319735
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 17, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 17, 2020
Summary: ORDER CINDY K. JORGENSON , District Judge . On February 12, 2020 Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 59) in which she recommended the Court enter an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 26). The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objection
Summary: ORDER CINDY K. JORGENSON , District Judge . On February 12, 2020 Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 59) in which she recommended the Court enter an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 26). The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objections..
More
ORDER
CINDY K. JORGENSON, District Judge.
On February 12, 2020 Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 59) in which she recommended the Court enter an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 26).
The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed within the time provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).1
After an independent review, the Courts finds it appropriate to adopt the Report and Recommendation and grant in part and deny in part Defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. 26).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 59) is adopted.
2. Defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) is granted in part and denied in part.
a. On Counts Two, Three, Four, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelves, Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen, Defendants' summary judgment is granted.
b. On Count One, summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent Plaintiffs have alleged claims of negligent manufacture and negligent failure to warn, summary judgment is granted. To the extent Plaintiffs have alleged a claim of negligent design, summary judgment is denied.
3. Counts One (in part), Five, Six, Sixteen, Seventeen, and Eighteen remain for trial.
FootNotes
1. The standard of review that is applied to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is dependent upon whether a party files an objection — the Court need not review portions of a report to which a party does not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the Court must "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Nonetheless, "while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
Source: Leagle
