Integrated Biomass Resources, LLC v. AIX Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:2019cv02060 - Document 63 (D. Or. 2021)
Court Description: AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Sullivan's recommendations, I ADOPT her F. & R. 55 as my own opinion, and I GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 35 . I DENY Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 37 . Signed on 9/21/2021 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dsg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Integrated Biomass Resources, LLC v. AIX Specialty Insurance Company Case 2:19-cv-02060-SU Document 63 Doc. 63 Filed 09/21/21 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PENDELTON DIVISION INTEGRATED BIOMASS RESOURCES, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-02060-SU Plaintiff, v. AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER AIX SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On May 17, 2021, Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F. & R.”) [ECF 55]. Judge Sullivan recommends that I (1) DENY Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 37] and, (2) GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 35]. Defendant filed objections [ECF 57] to the F. & R. on June 1, 2021. Plaintiff responded [ECF 58] on June 15, 2021. I agree with Judge Sullivan’s wellreasoned opinion. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-02060-SU Document 63 Filed 09/21/21 Page 2 of 2 make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under 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. Arn, 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 part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Sullivan’s recommendations, I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF 55] as my own opinion, and I GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 35]. I DENY Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 37]. IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 day of September, 2021. DATED this ____ ________________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge 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.
