Jones v. Cirrus Design Corporation et al, No. 3:2006cv01656 - Document 231 (D. Or. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Granting Third Party Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 152 ;and Adopting Findings and Recommendation as my own Opinion 222 . Signed on 10/30/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (mkk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON FllErf09OCT 3016G3l1s!JC-f)(p LAURIE JONES, individually and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER JONES, deceased No. CV 06-1656-ST OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION and AVIDYNE CORPORATION t Defendants. CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION and AVIDYNE CORPORATION t Third-Party Plaintiff v. JENNIFER S. LINK or JANE DOE or JOHN DOE who may be appointed as personal representative of the Estate of PAUL SCHIOLER-LINCK, t Third-Party Defendant. MOSMAN,J., On October 8t 2009; Magistrate Judge Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#222) in the above-captioned case reconunending that Third-Party Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#152) be GRANTED. No objections were filed. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#222) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this !fJ- day of October, 2009. PAGE 2 OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.