Legal Opinion
Rice v. Comtek Manufacturing of Oregon, Inc.
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided November 12, 1990No. Civ. 89-1198-JUPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
REDDEN, Chief Judge:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), Judge Juba ruled on plaintiff La Vonne Rice’s motion to amend. Plaintiff has requested a review of that ruling. “Pretrial orders of a magistrate under § 636(b)(1)(A) are reviewable under the ‘clearly erroneous and contrary to law’ standard; they are not subject to de novo determination as are a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations under section 636(b)(1)(B).” Merritt v. International Bro. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1017 (5th Cir.1981) (per curiam). Accord U.S. v. Saunders, 641 F.2d 659,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Frank Howey v. United States of America, and Third-Party v. Radio Corporation of America, Third-Party v. Universal Services, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
- Sheets v. KnightOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- Roy E. Merritt, Cross-Appellants v. The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Dixon L. Pyles and C. R. McRae Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Best v. United States National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Gabrielson v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wallulis v. DymowskiOregon Supreme Court · 1996
- Dutson v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1993
- Wallulis v. DymowskiCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
- Hollinquest v. PayneDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2021