Gaston v. Facebook, Inc. et al
OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewarts recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 6 as my own opinion. Signed on 2/24/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
KANAL V. GASTON,
OPINION AND ORDER
FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,
On February 2, 2012, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”)  in the above-captioned case, recommending that I grant the
application to proceed in forma pauperis , deny the motion for appointment of counsel ,
and dismiss plaintiff’s claims with leave to amend as to some named defendants. No objections
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
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
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 Stewart’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
day of February, 2012.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court
2 – OPINION AND ORDER