Singh v. Czerniak et al

Filing 57

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 55 as my own opinion, 34 , 42 . Signed on 2/23/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ROTISH VIKASH SINGH, No. CV 07-1906-PK Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. STAN CZERNIAK, et al., Defendants.

MOSMAN, J., On January 27, 2009, Magistrate Judge Papak issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#55) in the above-captioned case recommending that defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#34) be GRANTED, and plaintiff's Motion to Compel (#42) be DENIED as moot. 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

PAGE 1 OPINION AND ORDER

court is not required to review, under a de novo or 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 of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#55) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 23rd day of February, 2009. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court

PAGE 2 OPINION AND ORDER