Wiseman et al v. Nyxio Technologies Corporation et al
Filing
60
OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 57 and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 33 . Signed on 11/2/15 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)
IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
STEVE WISEMAN, RICHARD WALSH,
JOE FIJAK, and ROBERT CALDARELLA,
Plaintiffs,
No. 3:14-cv-00420-PK
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
NYXIO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
and GIORGIO JOHNSON,
Defendants.
MOSMAN,J.,
On October 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation
(F&R) [57], recommending Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment [33] should be
GRANTED in part as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims against defendant Nyxio; DENIED
in pati as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims against Defendant Johnson; Plaintiffs be
awarded damages in the amount of$487,785.10; and Plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims should
be DISMISSED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the comi, to which any party may
file written objections. The comi is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge,
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de nova determination regarding those portions of the repoti or specified findings or
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
reconnnendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de nova 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)(l)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [57]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED
this~ day of November, 2015.
~
United States District Judge
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?