PIRV v. GLOCK, INC.

Full title: FLORIN B. PIRV, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GLOCK, INC., a Georgia…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jan 8, 2009

CV 06-145-PK (D. Or. Jan. 8, 2009)

Opinion

CV 06-145-PK.

January 8, 2009

OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES REDDEN, District Judge

On October 15, 2008, Magistrate Judge Papak filed his Findings and Recommendation (doc. 104) that the Glock Defendants' (Corrected) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, to Preclude Plaintiff's Proposed Expert, and for Costs (doc. 59), and Defendant Federal Cartridge Company's Motion for Joinder (doc. 84) both be DENIED.

The matter is now before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 54(d)(2)(D). When a party timely objects to any portion of the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). In conducting a de novo review, the district court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, and "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The district court is not, however, required to review the magistrate judge's factual and legal conclusions to which the parties do not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Defendants timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation. I have, therefore, given those portions of the Findings and Recommendation a de novo review. I agree with Magistrate Judge Papak's analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 104) as my own opinion. The Glock Defendants' (Corrected) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, to Preclude Plaintiff's Proposed Expert, and for Costs (doc. 59) and Defendant Federal Cartridge Company's Motion for Joinder (doc. 84) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.