Opinion
No. CV. 09-482-AC
08-31-2011
KERI GIULIO, Plaintiff, v. BV CENTERCAL, LLC, a Delaware corporation; CENTERCAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; IPC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, CITY OF TUALATIN, a municipal corporation; and BRAD KING, an individual, Defendants.
JOHN E. GUTBEZAHL LLC Attorney for Plaintiff Wm Kelly Olson MITCHELL LANG & SMITH Attorney for Defendant BV CenterCal, LLC Steven A. Kraemer Mark C. Sherman HOFFMAN HART & WAGNER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant CenterCal Properties, LLC Lee S. Aronson SCHULTE ANDERSON DOWNES ARONSON BITTNER, PC Attorney for Defendant IPC International Corporation David C. Lewis MILLER & WAGNER, LLP Attorney for Defendants City of Tualatin, Oregon and Brad King
ORDER
JOHN E. GUTBEZAHL LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
Wm Kelly Olson
MITCHELL LANG & SMITH
Attorney for Defendant BV CenterCal, LLC
Steven A. Kraemer
Mark C. Sherman
HOFFMAN HART & WAGNER, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant CenterCal Properties, LLC
Lee S. Aronson
SCHULTE ANDERSON DOWNES ARONSON BITTNER, PC
Attorney for Defendant IPC International Corporation
David C. Lewis
MILLER & WAGNER, LLP
Attorney for Defendants City of Tualatin, Oregon and Brad King
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (doc. #80) on August 10, 2011, in which he recommends that I grant the amended motion for summary judgment (doc. #31) filed by IPC International Corporation. The Magistrate Judge also issued a Findings and Recommendation (doc. #81) the same day, August 10, 2011, in which he recommends that I grant the motions for summary judgments (doc. #20 and #24) filed by CenterCal Properties and BV CenterCal, LLC, respectively. The matter is now before me 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 Recommendations were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 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, I find no error.
CONCLUSION
The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations (doc. #80 and #81). Accordingly, Defendants' motions for summary judgment (doc. #20, #24, and #31) are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marco A. Hernandez
United States District Judge