Teater v. Pfizer, Inc. et al
Filing
115
OPINION and ORDER - The Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation 112 . Plaintiffs Motion to Enlarge Time to File Expert Designations 99 is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 84 is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. Signed 6/6/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
TERESA E.A. TEATER,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00604-HU
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
v.
PFIZER, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on May 13, 2013. Dkt. 112. Judge Hubel recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Enlarge Time to File Expert Designations (Dkt. 99) be granted and Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 84) be granted. No party has filed objections.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court
PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended
to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report[.]”); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (the court must review de novo magistrate’s findings
and recommendations if objection is made, “but not otherwise”).
Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude
further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.”
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings
and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Judge Hubel’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hubel’s
Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 112. Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge Time to File Expert
Designations (Dkt. 99) is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 84) is
GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of June, 2013.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?