LNG Development Company, LLC v. Port of Astoria, No. 3:2009cv00847 - Document 128 (D. Or. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: ADOPTING the Findings & Recommendation 109 ; DENYING Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss 86 . Signed on 2/16/10 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (mr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FllED'1OFEB1612~-(JIp FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION LNG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, dba OREGON LNG, No. CV 09-847-JE Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER v. PORT OF ASTORIA, an Oregon Port; DAN HESS, an individual; LARRY PFUND, an individual; WILLIAM HUNSINGER, an individual; JACK BLAND, an individual; and FLOYD HOLCOM, an individual, Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On December 29, 2009, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation (nF&Rn) (# I 09) in the above-captioned case recommending that! DENY defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss (#86). Defendants flied objections (#119) to the F&R and plaintiff responded (#123). DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may flIe written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make PAGE 1 - OPINION & ORDER a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified fmdings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modifY any of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#109) as my own opinion. Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss (#86) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this \,.b day of February, 2010. PAGE 2 - OPINION & 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.