CORNILLES v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., (D.Or. 2000)

MALCOLM F. MARSH, United States District Judge.

Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas filed his Findings and Recommendation on August 2, 2000. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R. Civ P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. See § 636(b)(1)(C); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174-5 (9th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Ashmanskas' Findings and Recommendation #76. The motion (#6) of plaintiffs to certify a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b) is STAYED pending the court's assessment of the viability of plaintiffs' claims through dispositive motions. Plaintiffs' motion (#43) for leave of court to amend their complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. The motion (#52-1) of defendants, Regal Cinemas, Inc. and Cinemark USA, Inc., to dismiss, or in the alternative (#52-2) to stay plaintiffs' complaint, which is joined by defendant Century Theaters, Inc., (motion #60-1 and 60-2) is DENIED because plaintiffs were not required to exhaust administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.