Norland v. Oregon Pretrial Services et al

Filing 116

OPINION AND ORDER: Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment 83 ; Adopting Findings and Recommendation 107 . Signed on 9/29/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (mkk)

IN T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N
FflEDr 09 SEP 2916:49USOC-tRP

R I C H A R D NORLAND) No. C V 0 5 - 6 3 1 2 - S T Plaintiff, OPINION AND O R D E R v. STATE OF OREGON) e t at.) Defendants.

MOSMAN,J.)
On J u n e 25) 2009) Magistrate Judge Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation ( " F & R " ) ( # 1 0 7 ) i n t h e a b o v e - c a p t i o n e d c a s e r e c o m m e n d i n g t h a t P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n for S a n c t i o n s (#93) b e DENIED) that Defendants' M o t i o n to Strike P l a i n t i f f s Response and Request for S a n c t i o n s ( # 9 9 ) b e DENIED) a n d t h a t D e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t ( # 8 3 ) b e GRANTED IN P A R T AND DENIED IN PART. P l a i n t i f f filed objections to t h e F & R (#112).

DISCUSSION
T h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e m a k e s o n l y r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s to t h e c o u r t , t o w h i c h a n y p a r t y m a y file w r i t t e n o b j e c t i o n s . T h e c o u r t i s n o t b o u n d b y t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e ) b u t r e t a i n s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r m a k i n g t h e final d e t e n n i n a t i o n . T h e c o u r t i s g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e d t o m a k e a de novo determination o f t h o s e portions o f the report o r specified findings o r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n as t o w h i c h a n o b j e c t i o n i s m a d e . 2 8 U . S . C . § 6 3 6 ( b ) ( I ) ( C ) . H o w e v e r , t h e

court is n o t required to review, under a de novo o r any other standard, t h e factual o r legal c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e a s to t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f t h e F & R t o w h i c h n o o b j e c t i o n s a r e addressed. See Thomas v. Am, 474 u.s. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level o f scrutiny u n d e r w h i c h I am required to review t h e F & R d e p e n d s o n w h e t h e r o r n o t o b j e c t i o n s h a v e b e e n f i l e d , i n e i t h e r c a s e , I a m free t o a c c e p t , reject, o r modify a n y o f the magistrate j u d g e ' s F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). U p o n review, I a g r e e w i t h J u d g e S t e w a r t ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , and I A D O P T t h e F & R ( # 1 0 7 ) as m y o w n o p i n i o n .

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

~ day o f September, 20J.

U n i t e d States District C o u r t

S!'HA~~--

P A G E 2 OPINION A N D O R D E R