Opinion
No. CV 06-722-AS.
October 23, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
On September 11, 2007, Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas issued Findings and Recommendation ("F R") (#39) in the above-captioned case recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#25) be GRANTED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#13) be DENIED, that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (#14) be DENIED, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. No objections were filed.
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The district court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. Where objections have been made, I conduct a de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, I am not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections are made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). In either case, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's F R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Ashmanskas's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F R as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.