Shah v. MyLife.com, Inc. et al
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
SHANTU N. SHAH,
OPINION AND ORDER
MYLIFE.COM, INC. et al.,
On September 21, 2012, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”)  in the above-captioned case recommending that the Complaint 
be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff objected .
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 
in that it finds a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
day of October, 2012.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman____
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge
2 – OPINION AND ORDER