From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freudenthaler v. Fort James Operating Co.

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Nov 1, 2000
Civil No. 99-1056-AS (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2000)

Opinion

Civil No. 99-1056-AS

November 1, 2000


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed his Findings and Recommendation on September 6, 2000. 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 Magistrate Ashmanskas' Findings and Recommendation #82. Defendant's motion (#34) for summary judgment is DENIED with regard to defendant Freudenthaler and is GRANTED with regard to defendant Touch. Defendant's motion (#34) to strike is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Freudenthaler v. Fort James Operating Co.

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Nov 1, 2000
Civil No. 99-1056-AS (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2000)
Case details for

Freudenthaler v. Fort James Operating Co.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID FREUDENTHALER, Plaintiff, v. FORT JAMES OPERATING COMPANY, a…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Nov 1, 2000

Citations

Civil No. 99-1056-AS (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2000)