Jane Doe 130 v. Archdiocese of Portland In Oregon et al

Filing 84

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#82) as my own opinion. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 44 is DENIED. Plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation is DISMISSED without pre judice. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 52 is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to the misrepresentation claim and otherwise DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice 54 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as described in Judge Papak's F&R 82 . Signed on 5/4/2010 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

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

JANE DOE 130, No. CV 08-193-PK Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER v. THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, and FR. J.V.H., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On April 8, 2010, Magistrate Judge Papak issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#82) in the above-captioned case recommending that I DENY plaintiff's Motion to Compel (#44), DISMISS plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation, DENY AS MOOT defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#52) as to Jane's misrepresentation claim, DENY the remainder of the Motion to Dismiss (#52), and GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice (#54). No objections were filed. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may

PAGE 1 - OPINION & ORDER

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 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 (#82) as my own opinion. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (#44) is DENIED. Plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation is DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#52) is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to the misrepresentation claim and otherwise DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice (#54) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as described in Judge Papak's F&R. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2010.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court

PAGE 2 - OPINION & ORDER