Opinion
Civ. No. 3:10-1481-AC
08-19-2011
TAYLOR LEE VINEYARD, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER MICHAEL SOTO et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
MOSMAN, J.,
On July 21, 2011, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [49] in the above-captioned case recommending that the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Portland State University, Officer Michael Soto, Officer David Baker, Officer C. Whitten, Sergeant Robert McCleary, and Charrie Stroud-Kafouros [4] be granted in part and denied in part. 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 [49] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court