Teater v. Pfizer, Inc. et al, No. 3:2005cv00604 - Document 115 (D. Or. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER - The Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation 112 . Plaintiffs Motion to Enlarge Time to File Expert Designations 99 is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 84 is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. Signed 6/6/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION TERESA E.A. TEATER, Case No. 3:05-cv-00604-HU Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. PFIZER, INC., et al., Defendants. Michael H. Simon, District Judge. United States Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on May 13, 2013. Dkt. 112. Judge Hubel recommended that Plaintiff s Motion to Enlarge Time to File Expert Designations (Dkt. 99) be granted and Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 84) be granted. No party has filed objections. Under the Federal Magistrates Act ( Act ), the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate s findings and recommendations, the court PAGE 1 OPINION AND ORDER 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). If no party objects, 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[.] ); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (the court must review de novo magistrate s findings and recommendations if objection is made, but not otherwise ). Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that [w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court review the magistrate s findings and recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Hubel s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hubel s Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 112. Plaintiff s Motion to Enlarge Time to File Expert Designations (Dkt. 99) is GRANTED. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 84) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 6th day of June, 2013. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge PAGE 2 OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
