`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
