Evraz Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company

Filing 296

OPINION AND ORDER. Upon review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 284 as my own opinion. Signed on 10/10/13 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

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

EVRAZ INC., NA, a Delaware Corporation,
No. 3:08-CV-00447-AC
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On August 14, 2013, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation
[284], recommending that Riddell Williams’s Motion to Intervene [234] be GRANTED. No
objections to this intervention were 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 regarding 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, 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
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R
[284] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th

day of October, 2013.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman___
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER