Sanford M. v. Berryhill, 6:17-cv-00571-AC. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20181227882
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 26, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN , Chief District Judge . On October 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [28], recommending that I REVERSE and REMAND for fmiher proceedings. Neither party objected. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any patiy may file written objections. The comi is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final de
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN , Chief District Judge . On October 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [28], recommending that I REVERSE and REMAND for fmiher proceedings. Neither party objected. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any patiy may file written objections. The comi is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final det..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, Chief District Judge.
On October 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [28], recommending that I REVERSE and REMAND for fmiher proceedings. Neither party objected.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any patiy may file written objections. The comi is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The comi 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 [28] in full. I REVERSE and REMAND for futher proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the nongovernmental party in this case.
Source: Leagle
