From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acro-Tech, Inc. v. Jackson

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jul 12, 2001
Civil No. 01-212-AS (D. Or. Jul. 12, 2001)

Opinion

Civil No. 01-212-AS

July 12, 2001

Pro Se Plaintiff.

David B. Adler, Seattle, WA, Herbert George Grey, Beaverton, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

David K. Miller, Miller Wagner LLP, Portland, OR, Roderick A. Boutin, Bowerman Boutin, Oregon City, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.


ORDER


The Honorable Donald Ashmanskas, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on May 21, 2001. The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983); See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas' Findings and Recommendation (#15).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motions to remand (#4 and #6) are GRANTED. Defendants' request for attorney fees are denied. This action is remanded to the Circuit Court in Columbia County.


Summaries of

Acro-Tech, Inc. v. Jackson

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jul 12, 2001
Civil No. 01-212-AS (D. Or. Jul. 12, 2001)
Case details for

Acro-Tech, Inc. v. Jackson

Case Details

Full title:ACRO-TECH, INC., an Oregon corporation; REGGIE D. HUGG and LISA G. HUFF…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jul 12, 2001

Citations

Civil No. 01-212-AS (D. Or. Jul. 12, 2001)