Opinion
No. CV04-1298-AS.
January 20, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 23, 2005, Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas issued Findings and Recommendation ("FR") (# 53) in the above-captioned case recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment (# 25) be denied. No objections were filed.
In conducting my review of the FR, I apply the following standard. 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 required to make a de novo determination of 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, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the FR 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 FR depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's FR. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The court agrees with Judge Ashmanskas' recommendation to deny defendant's motion (#25) for summary judgment. Therefore, the court adopts the Findings Recommendations without modification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.