From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crane v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Apr 9, 2013
No. 3:10-cv-00068-AC (D. Or. Apr. 9, 2013)

Opinion

No. 3:10-cv-00068-AC

04-09-2013

CAROLE CRANE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER

MOSMAN, J.,

On March 21, 2013, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [121] in the above-captioned case, recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment [81] 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 Acosta's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [121] as my own opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Crane v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Apr 9, 2013
No. 3:10-cv-00068-AC (D. Or. Apr. 9, 2013)
Case details for

Crane v. United States

Case Details

Full title:CAROLE CRANE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

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

Date published: Apr 9, 2013

Citations

No. 3:10-cv-00068-AC (D. Or. Apr. 9, 2013)

Citing Cases

Nordenstrom v. Corizon Health, Inc.

ORS 169.140 requires local correctional facilities to provide all prisoners in their custody “necessary…

Carranza v. United States

Furthermore, this court recently recognized a special relationship existed between the United States Marshall…