Opinion
No. 2:17-cv-00121-SU
07-24-2017
SHAWNA COX, and those similarly situated, and those real parties to be joined as their names become known, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,
On June 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [15], recommending that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [5] should be DENIED and that the United States' Motion to Dismiss [4] should be GRANTED. Neither party objected to the F&R.
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 recommendations 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 with 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 Sullivan's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [15] as my own opinion. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is DENIED, and the United States' Motion to Dismiss [4] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 24 day of July, 2017.
/s/_________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge