Legal Opinion
FRONTIER RECOVERY, LLC v. Lane County
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided June 21, 2010No. Civ. 09-6017-TCPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
AIKEN, Chief Judge:
Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on April 14, 2010. The matter is now before me pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920, 102 S.Ct. 1277, 71 L.Ed.2d 461 (1982).
Both plaintiff and defendant have…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Commodore Business MacHines Inc. And Commodore Business MacHines (Canada) LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Nissan Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Ltd v. Fritz Companies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Little v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2014