Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-01891-PK
07-17-2015
ARTHUR JOHN GALLIGAR, Plaintiff, v. STEVE FRANKE et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,
On June 9, 2014, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [103] in the above-captioned case, recommending that the Snake River Correctional Institution Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [91] be granted and that Mr. Galligar's claims against them be dismissed with prejudice. He further recommended that Defendant Eastwood be dismissed from this action, as any claim against him would be untimely. Mr. Galligar filed objections 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 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 Papak's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [103] as my own opinion. Mr. Galligar does not raise any issues with Judge Papak's F&R [103] in his filed objections, but rather he argues that I erred in my previous order [74] adopting Judge Papak's F&R [65].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of July, 2015.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge