FREDRICKSON v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, 3:13-cv-00029-HU. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20140924i43
Visitors: 24
Filed: Sep. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM F. MARSH, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation (#87) on August 7, 2014, recommending that Defendant should be awarded $350 in costs under Defendant's Bill of Costs (#61). That same day Judge Hubel issued a second Findings and Recommendation (#88) recommending that Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees (#57) should be denied. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has timely fi
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM F. MARSH, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation (#87) on August 7, 2014, recommending that Defendant should be awarded $350 in costs under Defendant's Bill of Costs (#61). That same day Judge Hubel issued a second Findings and Recommendation (#88) recommending that Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees (#57) should be denied. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has timely fil..
More
ORDER
MALCOLM F. MARSH, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation (#87) on August 7, 2014, recommending that Defendant should be awarded $350 in costs under Defendant's Bill of Costs (#61). That same day Judge Hubel issued a second Findings and Recommendation (#88) recommending that Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees (#57) should be denied. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has timely filed objections to either Findings and Recommendation.
When neither party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, this 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). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.
Accordingly, I ADOPT both of Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendations (#87, #88). IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the Bill of Costs (#61), Defendant is awarded costs in the total sum of $350.00. Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees (#57) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
