From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ALPS SOUTH, LLC v. OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Jun 7, 2010
Case No. 8:08-cv-1893-T-33MAP (M.D. Fla. Jun. 7, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 8:08-cv-1893-T-33MAP.

June 7, 2010


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo's claims construction report and recommendation (Doc. # 112), filed on May 19, 2010.

As of this date, there are no objections to the report and recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such objections has elapsed.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge and the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: ACCEPTED ADOPTED. hydrogenated styrene isoprene/butadiene block copolymer plasticizing oil

(1) The report and recommendation (Doc. # 112) is and (2) "" as used in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the `109 patent encompasses "a block copolymer resulting from the hydrogenation of a styrene isoprene/butadiene block copolymer." (3) "" as used in the `109 and `253 patents means "a substantially aromatic-free processing oil that extends the elastomeric center block segment of a hydrogenated styrene isoprene/butadiene block copolymer." DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida.


Summaries of

ALPS SOUTH, LLC v. OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Jun 7, 2010
Case No. 8:08-cv-1893-T-33MAP (M.D. Fla. Jun. 7, 2010)
Case details for

ALPS SOUTH, LLC v. OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY

Case Details

Full title:ALPS SOUTH, LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Date published: Jun 7, 2010

Citations

Case No. 8:08-cv-1893-T-33MAP (M.D. Fla. Jun. 7, 2010)

Citing Cases

StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc.

Alps S., LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co., No. 8:08-cv-1893-T-33MAP, 2010 WL 2347046, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 19,…