From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Miss Pacific LLC

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 15, 2009
Civil No. 09-306-ST (D. Or. Jun. 15, 2009)

Opinion

Civil No. 09-306-ST.

June 15, 2009

Robert J. Neuberger, Jackson Tower, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Eric R. McVittie, Markus B G Oberg, Svetlana P. Spivak, LeGros Buchanan Paul, Seattle, Washington, Attorneys for Defendants.


ORDER


The Honorable Janice M. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on May 21, 2009. The matter is before this court. 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.2nd 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983); 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.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation dated May 21, 2009 (#61).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Costs Under RCW 4.28.185(5) (#46) is DENIED.


Summaries of

Rose v. Miss Pacific LLC

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 15, 2009
Civil No. 09-306-ST (D. Or. Jun. 15, 2009)
Case details for

Rose v. Miss Pacific LLC

Case Details

Full title:PERRY ROSE, Plaintiff, v. MISS PACIFIC LLC, PACIFIC FISHING LLC, F/V MISS…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jun 15, 2009

Citations

Civil No. 09-306-ST (D. Or. Jun. 15, 2009)

Citing Cases

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. Friedman

Thus, although often conflated, "[s]ervice of process is a distinct and separate concept from the court's…