Clarke v. ALJEX Software, Inc.

Filing 26

Opinion and Order - Upon review, I agree with Judge Sullivans recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 24 as my own opinion. I also conclude that Defendants first Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Motion to Transfer Venue 9 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 12/21/2015 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (ecp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PENDLETON DIVISION

JONATHON CLARKE,
No. 2:15-cv-01271-SU
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
ALJEX SOFTWARE INC.,
Defendant.

MOSMAN, J.,
On December 1, 2015, Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued her Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [24], recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and Motion to Transfer Venue to New
Jersey [14] should be DENIED. Judge Sullivan also recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Transfer Venue to Idaho [12] should be GRANTED. No objections to the Findings and
Recommendation were filed. I agree with Judge Sullivan’s recommendation and I ADOPT the
F&R [24] as my own opinion. While not specifically addressed in the F&R, I also conclude that
Defendant’s first Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction, and Motion to Transfer Venue [9] is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge,

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R
depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject,
or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Sullivan’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R
[24] as my own opinion. I also conclude that Defendant’s first Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and Motion to Transfer Venue [9] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

21st

day of December, 2015.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman ___
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER