Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_17-cv-00099/USCOURTS-azd-4_17-cv-00099-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Erna Marie Salazar,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Hercules Tire & Rubber Company, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-00099-TUC-CKJ (LAB)

ORDER 

On January 22, 2020 Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 95) in which she recommended the Court enter an order granting 

Defendant Shangdong Yongsheng Rubber Group Company’s Motion to Dismiss. 

The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any party may serve and 

file written objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report 

and Recommendation. No objections have been filed within the time provided by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b)(2).1

After an independent review, the Courts finds it appropriate to adopt the Report and 

Recommendation and grant Defendant Shangdong Yongsheng Rubber Group Company’s

1 The standard of review that is applied to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

is dependent upon whether a party files an objection – the Court need not review portions 

of a report to which a party does not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). 

However, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition 

that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 

recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate 

judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Nonetheless, “while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no 

objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or 

at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

Case 4:17-cv-00099-CKJ-LAB Document 97 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

27

28

Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 54). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 95) is adopted.

2. Defendant Shangdong Yongsheng Rubber Group Company’s Motion to 

Dismiss (Doc. 54) is granted.

3. Shangdong Yongsheng Rubber Group Company is dismissed as a party in

this case. 

Dated this 21st day of February, 2020.

Case 4:17-cv-00099-CKJ-LAB Document 97 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 2