Shah v. MyLife.com, Inc. et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewarts recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 4 in that it finds a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. Signed on 10/11/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION SHANTU N. SHAH, No. 3:12-cv-01592-ST Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. MYLIFE.COM, INC. et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On September 21, 2012, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [4] in the above-captioned case recommending that the Complaint [1] be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff objected [7]. 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER 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 [4] in that it finds a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 11th day of October, 2012. /s/ Michael W. Mosman____ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge 2 – OPINION AND ORDER