Hill Meat Company v. Sioux-Preme Packing Co.

Full title: HILL MEAT COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX-PREME…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: May 13, 2009

Civil No. 08-1062-SU (D. Or. May. 13, 2009)

Opinion

Civil No. 08-1062-SU.

May 13, 2009

ORDER

ANCER HAGGERTY, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [19] recommending that defendant's Motion to Dismiss [11] should be denied as to claims one, two, and three, and granted as to claim four, and that plaintiff should be allowed leave to amend to address the deficiencies in claim four.

No objections were filed to this Findings and Recommendation, and the case was referred to me. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation of the Magistrate. Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974).

No clear error appears on the face of the record. This court adopts the Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [11] is denied as to claims one, two, and three, and granted as to claim four. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to address the deficiencies in claim four.

IT IS SO ORDERED.