Opinion
No. CV 04-825-AS.
November 8, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
On September 13, 2006, Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas issued Findings and Recommendation ("FR") (#52) in the above-captioned case recommending defendants' motion for summary judgment (#23) be GRANTED and plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment (#32) be DENIED. Plaintiff filed timely objections on September 28, to which defendants responded on October 10.
The magistrate judge only makes recommendations to the district 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. Where objections have been made, I conduct a de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). I am not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the FR 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).
Upon review of plaintiff's objections, I agree with Judge Ashmanskas's analysis and recommendation. Thus, I ADOPT the FR as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.