Opinion
2:22-cv-00443-SB
03-10-2023
SERGIO MIGUEL ZAMBRANO, Plaintiff, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
MOSMAN, J.
On December 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 44] recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF 24] and deny Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel [ECF 33]. Plaintiff filed objections [ECF 48], to which Defendants responded [ECF 52]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman. I DENY the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and DENY the Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel.
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. 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 Beckerman's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 44]. I DENY Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF 24] and DENY Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel [ECF 33].
IT IS SO ORDERED..