From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eaton v. Davis

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Feb 28, 2002
Civil No. 01-854-AS (D. Or. Feb. 28, 2002)

Opinion

Civil No. 01-854-AS

February 28, 2002


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed his Findings and Recommendation on January 30, 2002. The matter is now before me. 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. See § 636(b)(1)(C); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174-5 (9th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT, with modifications, Magistrate Ashmanskas' Findings and Recommendation #19. I adopt Judge Ashmanskas' conclusion that personal jurisdiction is lacking as to the Orange County Defendants. However, because additional California defendants have not yet made an appearance, and to avoid multiple proceedings, I find that defendants' alternative motion to transfer (#3) should be granted. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Eaton v. Davis

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Feb 28, 2002
Civil No. 01-854-AS (D. Or. Feb. 28, 2002)
Case details for

Eaton v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD CARL EATON, Plaintiff, v. GRAY DAVIS, Governor of the State of…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Feb 28, 2002

Citations

Civil No. 01-854-AS (D. Or. Feb. 28, 2002)