From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Horn v. Horn

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 21, 2006
Civil No. 05-1543-AS (D. Or. Mar. 21, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 05-1543-AS.

March 21, 2006


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas issued a Findings and Recommendation [46] in this action recommending that defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [10] should be DENIED on the ground that this court has personal jurisdiction over defendants. No objections were filed, and the case was referred to me.

The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation of the Magistrate. Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974).

No clear error appears on the face of the record. This court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation [46] is adopted. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [10] is DENIED because this court has personal jurisdiction over defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Horn v. Horn

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 21, 2006
Civil No. 05-1543-AS (D. Or. Mar. 21, 2006)
Case details for

Horn v. Horn

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY B. HORN, Plaintiff, v. SHANNON HORN, LAURA HORN; JOHN DOES 1-10…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Mar 21, 2006

Citations

Civil No. 05-1543-AS (D. Or. Mar. 21, 2006)