From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stanich v. Quick Collect, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Dec 7, 2018
No. 3:17-CV-01693-JR (D. Or. Dec. 7, 2018)

Opinion

No. 3:17-CV-01693-JR

12-07-2018

ANGELA STANICH, Plaintiff, v. QUICK COLLECT, INC., Defendant.


ORDER :

Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [24] on September 10, 2018, in which he recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [13]. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court finds no error.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation [24]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [13] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 7 day of December, 2018

/s/_________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Stanich v. Quick Collect, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Dec 7, 2018
No. 3:17-CV-01693-JR (D. Or. Dec. 7, 2018)
Case details for

Stanich v. Quick Collect, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANGELA STANICH, Plaintiff, v. QUICK COLLECT, INC., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Dec 7, 2018

Citations

No. 3:17-CV-01693-JR (D. Or. Dec. 7, 2018)