Legal Opinion
Brummett v. United States
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided August 15, 2002No. CIV.02-3005-COPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
AIKEN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Cooney filed his Findings and Recommendation on July 9, 2002. 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 Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, I adopt Judge Cooney’s Findings and…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Richard McCarthy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Thornhill Publishing Company, Inc. v. General Telephone & Electronics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- United States v. BrockampSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Lorin Corporation v. Goto & Company, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1983
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Minehan v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007