Opinion
No. 3:11-cv-00003-ST
06-08-2012
TERRY W. EMMERT, Plaintiff, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
MOSMAN, J.,
On May 17, 2012, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [59] in the above-captioned case, recommending that I grant the amended motion for summary judgment [50] filed by Stewart Title Guaranty Company and joined by third-party defendant Pacific Northwest Title of Oregon, Inc., and that I dismiss this case with prejudice. No objections were filed.
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 (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 Stewart's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [59] as my own opinion. Defendant's amended motion for summary judgment [50] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court