United States of America, ex rel. Pragathi Gogineni and Ravindra Gogineni et al v. Fargo Pacific Inc. et al

Filing 180

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Bordallo's recommendation, and I ADOPT the R&R [ECF 170] as my own opinion. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 91] is DENIED. Signed by Senior District Judge Michael W Mosman on 9/29/2023. (Scheele, Kara)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX
REL. RAVIND RA GOGINENI,

No. 1: 17-cv-00096
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER.

V.

FARGO PACIFIC INC., JAY S.H.
PARK, and EDGAR L. MCCONNELL,

Defendants.

MOSMAN,J.,

On July 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Bordallo issued his Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") [ECF 170], recommending that I deny the Relator's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment [ECF 91] and find that, as a matter of law, the presumed loss rule does not
apply to the task orders awarded to Fargo under the 2009 IDIQ Contract. The Relator filed an
objection [ECF 172] on August 4, 2023, to which Defendants jointly responded [ECF 174].
Defendants filed limited objections [ECF 171] to which Relator responded [ECF 173] on August
18, 2023. Upon review, I agree with Judge Bordallo. I DENY the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment and find that the presumed loss rule does not apply to the task orders awarded to Fargo
Pacific Inc. under the 2009 IDIQ Contract.

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the couti, to which any party 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 court is generally r~quired to
make a de novo determination regarding those pmiions of the repoti or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the comi
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
pmi of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C).
CONCLUSION

Upon review, I agree with Judge Bordallo's recommendation, and I ADOPT the R&R
[ECF 170] as my own opinion. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 91] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

September, 2023.

Senior United States Distriyt Judge

2 - OPINION AND ORDER