Webb v. Marlon Recreational Products USA, Ltd. et al, No. 3:2015cv02380 - Document 63 (D. Or. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendations and I ADOPT the F&R 57 as my own. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 15 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 12/6/2016 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)

Download PDF
Webb v. Marlon Recreational Products USA, Ltd. et al Doc. 63 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION VINCENT L. WEBB, No. 3:15-cv-02380-SB Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. MARLON RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS USA, LTD., et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On October 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [57], recommending that I deny Defendant Marty Dotterweich’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [15]. Defendant objected to the F&R [60], and Plaintiff responded [62]. 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 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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). Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendations and I ADOPT the F&R [57] as my own. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [15] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 6th DATED this _______ day of December, 2016. /s/ Michael W. Mosman _____________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief 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.