Domion et al v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc., No. 3:2016cv01852 - Document 54 (D. Or. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. I DENY Defendant TriQuint Semiconductor Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations 52 . Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 45 as my own opinion. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 36 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 2/13/2018 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Domion et al v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. Doc. 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION PEDRO DOMION, ASHLEY DOMION, AND ASHLEY DOMION AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR NICHOLAS DOMION, a minor, No. 3:16-cv-01852-SB OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On November 2, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [45], recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [36] should be denied. Defendant TriQuint Semiconductor filed Objections [47] and Plaintiffs responded [51]. I DENY Defendant TriQuint Semiconductor Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations [52]. 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, 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 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 review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [45] as my own opinion. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [36] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED this ____ day of February, 2018. /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.
