`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`PORTLAND DIVISION
`
`MENTOR GRAPHICS CORP., an Oregon
`corporation,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`CV 10-954-HU
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`
`EVE-USA, INC, a Delaware corporation, and
`EMULATION AND VERIFICATION
`ENGINEERING, SA, formed under the laws of
`France,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`MOSMAN, J.,
`
`On April 8, 2011, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation
`
`(“F&R”) [102] in the above-captioned case recommending that the defendants’ Motion to
`
`Dismiss or to Transfer Venue [75] be denied. Defendants objected [108].
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
`
`file 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 a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
`
`recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court
`
`is not required to review, de novo or under 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
`
`OPINION AND ORDER - 1
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:10-cv-00954-MO Document 114 Filed 05/26/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#: 1448
`
`(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 part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
`
`Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [102]
`
`as my own opinion.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED this 25th day of May, 2011.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Michael W. Mosman
`MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
`United States District Court
`
`OPINION AND ORDER - 2