Opinion
No. CV 06-712-HU.
October 23, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
On September 18, 2007, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation ("F R") (#83) in the above-captioned case recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#47) be GRANTED IN PART as to any punitive damages plaintiff may seek on his Title VII, O.R.S. 659A.030, or 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims, and DENIED IN PART as to all other claims, and further recommending that Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Strike (#73) be DENIED. No objections were filed.
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The district court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. Where objections have been made, I conduct a de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, I am not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections are made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). In either case, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's 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 as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.