Emmingham v. Seltzer
Filing
152
OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubels recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 125 as my own opinion, 46 and 80 . Signed on 5/19/2011 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
JOHN EMMINGHAM,
CV 08-6329-HU
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
PER MICHAEL SELTZER, MICHAEL
HATHAWAY, Counselor, Oregon State
Penitentiary Minimum (OSPM),
THOMAS WRIGHT, Facility Manager,
OSMP, CARLA TUPOU, Assistant
Superintendent, OSCI, R. OGDEN,
Security Manager, OSCI, GREGORY
HUNTER, Library Coordinator, OSCI,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On January 18, 2011, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) [125] in the above-captioned case recommending that defendant Seltzer’s motion for
summary judgment [80] be granted, and that the ODOC Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment [46] be granted except as to plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Plaintiff
objected [131], as did the ODOC Defendants [146].
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
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 Hubel’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [125]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
19th
day of May, 2011.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?