Rice v. Comtek Manufacturing of Oregon, Inc.
District Court, D. Oregon
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
REDDEN, Chief Judge:
Magistrate Juba filed his Findings and Recommendation on March 6, 1990. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir.1983); See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dish, 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Juba’s Findings and Recommendation (doc. # 17) in its…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Andrea Dworkin Priscilla Moree Judith Fouts v. Hustler Magazine Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Gibson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Hall v. May Department Stores Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1981
- Sheets v. KnightOregon Supreme Court · 1989
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Richard Fredericks v. Gary Wright George Burke City of Forest Grove and John Doe, a Fictitious PersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Sexsmith v. MARRIOTT INTERN., INC.District Court, D. Oregon · 1995
- Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2015
- Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2015
- Tallman v. SpencerDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2024