Domion et al v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc.

Filing 54

OPINION AND ORDER. I DENY Defendant TriQuint Semiconductor Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations 52 . Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 45 as my own opinion. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 36 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 2/13/2018 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)

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

PEDRO DOMION, ASHLEY DOMION,
AND ASHLEY DOMION AS
GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR
NICHOLAS DOMION, a minor,

No. 3:16-cv-01852-SB
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.

MOSMAN, J.,
On November 2, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued her Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [45], recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [36] should be
denied. Defendant TriQuint Semiconductor filed Objections [47] and Plaintiffs responded [51]. I
DENY Defendant TriQuint Semiconductor Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its
Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations [52].
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 Beckerman’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R
[45] as my own opinion. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [36] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
DATED this ____ day of February, 2018.

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

2 – OPINION AND ORDER