Summary
applying Oregon's two-year personal injury statute of limitations to a federal Rehabilitation Act claim without discussing the Oregon Rehabilitation Act
Summary of this case from Clink v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ.Opinion
Civil No. 06-1426-AC.
June 6, 2008
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Acosta referred to this court a Findings and Recommendation in this action [143]. The Findings and Recommendation recommends that defendant Carnevale's Motion to Dismiss [91] be granted.
The matter is now before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See also 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. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974).
This court has examined the pending motion and the underlying record. No clear error appears on the face of the record. The Findings and Recommendation is, therefore, adopted. Accordingly, defendant Carnevale's Motion to Dismiss [91] is GRANTED, as described in the Findings and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.