Premier Automation Contractors, Inc. v. Everest National Insurance Company

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided December 6, 2019·No. 3:19-cv-00220·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PREMIER AUTOMATION No. 3:19-cv-00220-AC CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, v.

EVEREST NATIONAL ORDER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. HERNANDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (#23) on October 23, 2019, in which he recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend to Complaint. 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 Recommendation 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) (en banc); 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 1 - ORDER report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation [23]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend [11] is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED December 6, 2019

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ United States District Judge

2 - ORDER

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

Premier Automation Contractors, Inc. v. Everest National Insurance Company, (D. Or. 2019).

Premier Automation Contractors, Inc. v. Everest National Insurance Company (Premier Automation Contractors, Inc. v. Everest National Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related