Summary
denying a motion to dismiss because issues of whether a postcard-only jail mail policy violated prisoner's First Amendment rights and to what extent he was damaged, remain viable
Summary of this case from Dearwester v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Dep'tOpinion
No. 2:12-cv-01046-HU
06-12-2013
BOBBY SHANE CHARLTON, Plaintiff, v. UMATILLA COUNTY (or) JAIL SHERIFF JOHN TRUMBO, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
MOSMAN, J.,
On May 23, 2013, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [56] in the above-captioned case recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss [28] plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief be granted and that defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the alleged violation of his First Amendment rights be denied. 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 Hubel's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [56] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge