Pirv v. Glock, Inc. et al

Filing 113

OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 104 : The Glock Defendants' (Corrected) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, to Preclude Plaintiffs Proposed Expert, and for Costs 59 and Defendant Federal Cartridge Company's Motion for Joinder 84 are DENIED. Signed on 1/8/09 by Judge James A. Redden. (gm) Modified on 2/2/2009 (gm).

FILED'O'3 JAH 08 i6:05IJSDC'ORP

U N I T E D STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T DISTRICT OF O R E G O N

FLORIN B. PIRV, a n individual, Plaintiff,

C V 06-145-PK

OPINION AND O R D E R

v.
GLOCK, INC., a Georgia corporation; GLOCK, Ges.m.b.H., an Austrian Limited L i a b i l i t y Company; F E D E R A L C A R T R I D G E C O M P A N Y , a M i n n e s o t a corporation; A L L I A N T T E C H S Y S T E M S INC., a D e l a w a r e corporation, Defendants.

R E D D E N , Judge: O n October 15, 2008, Magistrate Judge P a p a k filed his Findings and Reconunendation (doc. 104) that the Glock Defendants' (Corrected) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, to Preclude Plaintiff's Proposed Expert, and for Costs (doc. 59), and Defendant Federal Catlridge Company's Motion for Joinder (doc. 84) both be DENIED. T h e m a t t e r i s n o w b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U . S . C . § 6 3 6 ( b ) ( l ) ( B ) a n d F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e n ( b ) a n d 5 4 (d ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . W h e n a p a t t y t i m e l y o b j e c t s to a n y p o r t i o n o f

the magistrate j u d g e ' s Findings and Recommendation, t h e district court must conduct a de novo review o f the portions o f the Findings and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n to w h i c h objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F . 2 d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). I n conducting a de novo review, the district court is n o t b o u n d b y the recommendations o f the magistrate j u d g e , a n d " m a y a c c e p t , r e j e c t , o r m o d i f y the r e c o m m e n d e d d e c i s i o n , r e c e i v e f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e , or recommit the matter to t h e magistrate j u d g e w i t h instlUctions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The district court is not, however, required to r e v i e w the magistrate j u d g e ' s factual and legal conclusions to w h i c h the parties do n o t object. T h o m a s v. A m , 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); U n i t e d States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F . 3 d 1114, 1121 ( 9 t h Cir. 2003). D e f e n d a n t s t i m e l y f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e P a p a k ' s F i n d i n g s and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n . I h a v e , t h e r e f o r e , g i v e n t h o s e pOliions o f t h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a

de novo review. I agree w i t h Magistrate Judge Papak's analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, I
A D O P T J u d g e P a p a k ' s F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ( d o c . 1 0 4 ) as m y o w n o p i n i o n . T h e Glock Defendants' (Corrected) M o t i o n to Dismiss o r in the Alternative, to Preclude P l a i n t i f f s P r o p o s e d Expert, and for Costs (doc. 59) and D e f e n d a n t Federal Catiridge Company's M o t i o n for Joinder (doc. 84) are DENIED. I T IS SO ORDERED. D A T E D this

+

/"
d a y o f January, 2 0 0 9 .

P A G E 2 - OPINION A N D O R D E R