Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01895/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01895-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS EUGENE MOORE, No. 2:04-cv-1895-MCE-EFB-PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY,

INC.; PHILLIP MORRIS INCORPORATED;

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY;

BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO 

CORPORATION; BRITISH AMERICAN

TOBACCO CO., LTD.; LIGGET GROUP,

INC.; LIGGET & MYERS, INC.; THE 

COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO 

RESEARCH-U.S.A., INC.; THE TOBACCO 

INSTITUTE, INC.; and LORILLARD 

TOBACCO COMPANY,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

On August 14, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed late objections on

September 20, 2006, and they were considered by the undersigned.

///

Case 2:04-cv-01895-MCE -EFB Document 40 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. U.S., 602

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed August 15, 2004, are ADOPTED; 

2. Defendant’s September 15, 2004 motion to dismiss is granted; and

3. Defendant Brown & Williamson is dismissed from this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(5) for insufficiency of service of process.

DATED: September 27, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01895-MCE -EFB Document 40 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2