Brown v. Union County et al

Filing 90

OPINION AND ORDER. Signed on 7/9/2018 by Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

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

BARRY LEWIS BROWN,
No. 2:16-cv-00679-YY
Plaintiff,

v.

OPINION AND ORDER

UNION COUNTY; SHERIFF BOYD
RASSMUSON; COMMANDER LORI
LUCAS; TIM CARY; KAREN PHELPS;
UNION COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,
Defendants.

MOSMAN,J.,
On May 10, 2018, Magistrate Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendation
(F&R) [78], recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [38] should be
GRANTED. PlaintiffBaiTy Lewis Brown filed objections [86]. The Defendants responded [88].
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)(l)(C). However, the court

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

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)(l)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [78] as
my own opinion. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [38] is GRANTED and this
case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
<(]!'
al-~-~

DATED this~ day of July, 2018.

Chief United

2 - OPINION AND ORDER