Milovich v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc.

D. Oregon

Milovich v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided March 19, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-01208·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

ALLEN and LANI MILOVICH, No. 1:24-cv-01208-CL Plaintiffs, ORDER v. AZIYO BIOLOGICS, INC. dba ELUTIA, INC.; MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC.; SPINALGRAFT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; DCI DONOR SERVICES, INC.; NEW MEXICO DONOR SERVICES, Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke, ECF No. 51. Judge Clarke recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal, ECF No. 18, should be GRANTED. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress,

in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the

face of the record.” In this case, Defendants have filed no objections. The F&R, ECF No. 51, is therefore ADOPTED and Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED as set forth in the F&R. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _1_9_t_h_ day of March 2025.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

ALLEN and LANI MILOVICH, No. 1:24-cv-01208-CL Plaintiffs, ORDER v. AZIYO BIOLOGICS, INC. dba ELUTIA, INC.; MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC.; SPINALGRAFT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; DCI DONOR SERVICES, INC.; NEW MEXICO DONOR SERVICES, Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke, ECF No. 51. Judge Clarke recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal, ECF No. 18, should be GRANTED. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress,

in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the

face of the record.” In this case, Defendants have filed no objections. The F&R, ECF No. 51, is therefore ADOPTED and Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED as set forth in the F&R. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _1_9_t_h_ day of March 2025.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge

Milovich v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc., (D. Or. 2025).

Pincite

Milovich v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc. (Milovich v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related