BERGER v. DIRECTV, INC., 3:14-cv-01661-PK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20150417d97
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [33] on March 6, 2015, in which he recommends that this Court deny in part and grant in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [15]. 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 no
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [33] on March 6, 2015, in which he recommends that this Court deny in part and grant in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [15]. 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 nov..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [33] on March 6, 2015, in which he recommends that this Court deny in part and grant in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [15]. 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 Papak's Findings & Recommendation [33], and therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [15] is denied in part and granted in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
