Jones v. Cirrus Design Corporation et al

Filing 231

OPINION AND ORDER: Granting Third Party Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 152 ;and Adopting Findings and Recommendation as my own Opinion 222 . Signed on 10/30/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (mkk)

IN T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N

FllErf09OCT 3016G3l1s!JC-f)(p

L A U R I E J O N E S , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d as P e r s o n a l Representative o f the E S T A T E O F C H R I S T O P H E R JONES, deceased Plaintiff,

No. C V 0 6 - 1 6 5 6 - S T

OPINION A N D O R D E R

v.
CIRRUS D E S I G N C O R P O R A T I O N and AVIDYNE CORPORATION t Defendants. CIRRUS D E S I G N C O R P O R A T I O N and AVIDYNE CORPORATION t Third-Party P l a i n t i f f v. J E N N I F E R S. LINK o r JANE D O E o r J O H N D O E w h o m a y b e a p p o i n t e d as p e r s o n a l representative o f t h e Estate o f P A U L SCHIOLER-LINCK,
t

T h i r d - P a r t y Defendant.

MOSMAN,J.,
O n O c t o b e r 8 t 2009; M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e S t e w a r t i s s u e d 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 ("F&R") (#222) i n t h e above-captioned case r e c o n u n e n d i n g t h a t T h i r d - P a r t y Defendant's M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t ( # 1 5 2 ) b e G R A N T E D . N o o b j e c t i o n s w e r e filed.

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 o f the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination o f those portions o f the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions o f the magistrate judge as to those portions o f the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. A m , 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level o f 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 o f the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#222) as my own opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

!fJ-

day o f October, 2009.

PAGE 2 OPINION AND ORDER