From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carroll v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Feb 10, 2015
No. 3:14-cv-00711-JE (D. Or. Feb. 10, 2015)

Opinion

No. 3:14-cv-00711-JE

02-10-2015

DANIEL CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,

On January 22, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [29], recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [3] should be GRANTED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation 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 Jelderks' recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [29] as my own opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Carroll v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Feb 10, 2015
No. 3:14-cv-00711-JE (D. Or. Feb. 10, 2015)
Case details for

Carroll v. United States

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Date published: Feb 10, 2015

Citations

No. 3:14-cv-00711-JE (D. Or. Feb. 10, 2015)

Citing Cases

Pinzon v. Mendocino Coast Clinics Inc.

nt has not requested substitution of the United States as a defendant, the Court concludes that considering a…

In re Lauren

Souder v. U.S. Navy, No. PWG-13-2809, 2014 WL 4749557, at *3 (D. Md. Sept. 22, 2014) (quoting Kokotis v. U.S.…