From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. Soniq Servs., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Oct 15, 2018
No. 3:17-cv-01990-AC (D. Or. Oct. 15, 2018)

Opinion

No. 3:17-cv-01990-AC

10-15-2018

ALEX WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. SONIQ SERVICES, INC., Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,

On August 16, 2018, Magistrate Judge John Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [15], recommending that Plaintiff be awarded $6,330 in attorney fees and $428.01 in costs. 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).

CONCLUSION

Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [15] in full. Plaintiff is awarded $6,330 in attorney fees and $428.01 in costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 15 day of October, 2018.

/s/_________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Wright v. Soniq Servs., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Oct 15, 2018
No. 3:17-cv-01990-AC (D. Or. Oct. 15, 2018)
Case details for

Wright v. Soniq Servs., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ALEX WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. SONIQ SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

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

Date published: Oct 15, 2018

Citations

No. 3:17-cv-01990-AC (D. Or. Oct. 15, 2018)

Citing Cases

Huyck v. Schilling-Devaney

The Court acknowledges that plaintiff's attorney has significant experience and has been recognized for his…