From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ritchie v. Staton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
May 16, 2018
Case No. 3:17-cv-00844-AC (D. Or. May. 16, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 3:17-cv-00844-AC

05-16-2018

BRENT RITCHIE, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL STATON, Multnomah County Sheriff; by and through the MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, a political subdivision of Multnomah County, Oregon, Defendants.


OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,

On March 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [29], recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [11] should be granted with prejudice as to the First Claim for Relief, and granted without prejudice as to the Second Claim for Relief, to the extent that Plaintiff may refile the Second Claim in state court. 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 [29] as my own opinion. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [11] is GRANTED with prejudice as to the First Claim for Relief, and GRANTED without prejudice as to the Second Claim for Relief, to the extent that Plaintiff may refile the Second Claim in state court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 16 day of May, 2018.

/s/_________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Ritchie v. Staton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
May 16, 2018
Case No. 3:17-cv-00844-AC (D. Or. May. 16, 2018)
Case details for

Ritchie v. Staton

Case Details

Full title:BRENT RITCHIE, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL STATON, Multnomah County Sheriff; by…

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

Date published: May 16, 2018

Citations

Case No. 3:17-cv-00844-AC (D. Or. May. 16, 2018)

Citing Cases

Shipman v. United States

This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Beckerman's F&R to which Plaintiff objects and accepts…