Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gramajo v. Nooth, 2:15-cv-2341-YY. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Oregon Number: infdco20191002d16 Visitors: 27
Filed: Sep. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN , District Judge . On March 29, 2019, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Order [70], directing that Petitioner's Motion for Discovery [55] be DENIED. Petitioner objected [86], and Defendant filed a response [92]. 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 fi
More

OPINION AND ORDER

On March 29, 2019, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Order [70], directing that Petitioner's Motion for Discovery [55] be DENIED. Petitioner objected [86], and Defendant filed a response [92].

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). If the magistrate judge has ruled on a non-dispositive matter, her decision is modified only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court is not required, however, to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the order to which no objections are addressed. Id. While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the order depends on whether objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

CONCLUSION

Upon review, I agree with Judge You's order and I DENY Petitioner's Motion for Discovery [55].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer