KAZEMY v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, 3:13-cv-02050-AC. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20140723e31
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge. On June 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [36] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Ms. Kazemy's motion to remand the action to Oregon state court [10] be denied. Neither party objected. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. I am not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge; instead, I reta
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge. On June 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [36] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Ms. Kazemy's motion to remand the action to Oregon state court [10] be denied. Neither party objected. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. I am not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge; instead, I retai..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.
On June 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [36] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Ms. Kazemy's motion to remand the action to Oregon state court [10] be denied. Neither party objected.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. I am not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge; instead, I retain responsibility for making the final determination. I am required to review de novo those portions of the report or any specified findings or recommendations within it to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, I am 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 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).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [36] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
