Christoferson v. Thomas

Filing 85

OPINION & ORDER: The Court agrees with Judge Jelderks' recommendation and ADOPTS the F&R 83 as its own opinion. See 2-page opinion and order attached. Signed on 6/17/2015 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (mr)

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

CHARLES CHRISTOFERSON,
No. 3:09-cv-01155-JE
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
WARDEN J.E. THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On May 27, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation
(F&R) [83], recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust
Administrative Remedies [78] should be GRANTED. No objections to the Findings and
Recommendation 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 Jelderks’ recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [83]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

17th

day of June, 2015.

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

2 – OPINION AND ORDER