Cox v. United States of America

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER: I agree with Judge Sullivan's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R 15 as my own opinion. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is DENIED, and the United States Motion to Dismiss 4 is GRANTED. Signed on 7/24/17 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (Mailed copy to plaintiff) (dsg)

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

SHAWNA COX, and those similarly
situated, and those real parties to be
joined as their names become known,
No. 2:17-cv-00121-SU
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
JOHN DOES 1-100,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On June 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [15], recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [5] should be
DENIED and that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss [4] should be GRANTED. Neither party
objected to the F&R.
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,

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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
recommendations 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 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 with 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 Sullivan’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [15]
as my own opinion. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is DENIED, and the United States’ Motion to
Dismiss [4] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
DATED this ______ day of July, 2017.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman
____________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER