Infusion Partners LLC v. Otono Networks, Inc. et al
OPINION and ORDER - ADOPTING Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation 27 which recommended GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 14 as my own opinion. Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of person jurisdiction. Plaintiff's request for additional discovery is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 9th day of May, 2017, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (peg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
OPINION AND ORDER
OTONO NETWORKS, INC., and
On April 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) , recommending that I GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
 for lack of personal jurisdiction. He also recommended that I DENY Plaintiff’s request for
additional discovery. Neither party objected to the F&R.
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,
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
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
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 careful review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R
 as my own opinion. Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this _____ day of May, 2017.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief 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?