Relyea v. Quilite International, LLC et al

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 40 as my own opinion, 36 . Signed on 3/17/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WILLIAM S. RELYEA, No. CV 07-878-JE Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. QUILITE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants.

MOSMAN, J., On December 31, 2008, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#40) in the above-captioned case recommending that plaintiff's Motion to Recover Service Costs (#36) be GRANTED IN PART. No objection to the F&R was filed. 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 of 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, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal

PAGE 1 OPINION AND ORDER

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 of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#40) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 17th day of March, 2009. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court

PAGE 2 OPINION AND ORDER