Opinion
No. 3:16-CV-01371-YY
04-09-2018
ROBERT MADRID, Plaintiff, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC and JOHNSON MARK, LLC, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,
On March 12, 2018, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [49], recommending that Defendant Johnson Mark, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment [34] should be GRANTED. On March 13, 2018, Judge You issued her F&R [51], recommending that Defendant Asset Acceptance, LLC's Motion for Joinder [37] should be GRANTED for the same reasons addressed in the first F&R [49]. 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 You's recommendations and I ADOPT both F&Rs [49, 51] as my own opinion. The Motion for Summary Judgment [34] and the Motion for Joinder [37] are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 9th day of April, 2018.
/s/_________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge