DENTAL v. CITY OF SALEM/SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT, 3:13-cv-1659-HU. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20140827c44
Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge. On June 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation [44], recommending that the Keizer Defendants' (City of Keizer and Officer Jeff Johnson of the Keizer Police Department) partial motion to dismiss [20] be GRANTED. No objections to this motion 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 recomme
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge. On June 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation [44], recommending that the Keizer Defendants' (City of Keizer and Officer Jeff Johnson of the Keizer Police Department) partial motion to dismiss [20] be GRANTED. No objections to this motion 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 recommen..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.
On June 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation [44], recommending that the Keizer Defendants' (City of Keizer and Officer Jeff Johnson of the Keizer Police Department) partial motion to dismiss [20] be GRANTED. No objections to this motion 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 Hubel's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [44] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
