From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Law v. Nooth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jul 29, 2015
Case No. 3:11 CV 00825-CL (D. Or. Jul. 29, 2015)

Summary

examining all previous petitions for relation back

Summary of this case from Nash v. Nooth

Opinion

Case No. 3:11 CV 00825-CL

07-29-2015

RONALD DARWIN LAW, Petitioner, v. MARK NOOTH, Respondent.


ORDER

Magistrate Judge Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation on June 30, 2015. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1982). See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, I adopt Judge Clarke's Findings and Recommendation.

Dated this 29 day of July, 2015.

/s/_________

Ann Aiken, United States District Judge


Summaries of

Law v. Nooth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jul 29, 2015
Case No. 3:11 CV 00825-CL (D. Or. Jul. 29, 2015)

examining all previous petitions for relation back

Summary of this case from Nash v. Nooth
Case details for

Law v. Nooth

Case Details

Full title:RONALD DARWIN LAW, Petitioner, v. MARK NOOTH, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jul 29, 2015

Citations

Case No. 3:11 CV 00825-CL (D. Or. Jul. 29, 2015)

Citing Cases

Nash v. Nooth

Based on this Court's review of the relevant case law, it appears that some courts have simply assumed that a…