MAGNA DONNELLY v. 3M COMPANY, 07-10688. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20120720a44
Filed: Jul. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING R&R VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, District Judge. On June 15, 2012, Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson issued a Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction ("R&R") (Doc. 108), subsequently clarified in an order dated July 3, 2012 denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 115). Defendant filed objections to the R&R, to which Plaintiff responded and Defendant replied (Docs. 112, 122, 125). When either party timely objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's ruling on
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING R&R VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, District Judge. On June 15, 2012, Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson issued a Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction ("R&R") (Doc. 108), subsequently clarified in an order dated July 3, 2012 denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 115). Defendant filed objections to the R&R, to which Plaintiff responded and Defendant replied (Docs. 112, 122, 125). When either party timely objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's ruling on a..
More
ORDER ADOPTING R&R
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, District Judge.
On June 15, 2012, Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson issued a Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction ("R&R") (Doc. 108), subsequently clarified in an order dated July 3, 2012 denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 115). Defendant filed objections to the R&R, to which Plaintiff responded and Defendant replied (Docs. 112, 122, 125).
When either party timely objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial matter, the district court may set aside any portion of the ruling found to be "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
The Court has reviewed the R&R, the relevant law, and the parties' briefs. Given Magistrate Michelson's careful consideration of the parties' proposed constructions and her thorough analysis, the Court does not find that the R&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS it in full.
IT IS ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
