Ordonez-Lopez et al v. Ivanov et al

Filing 36

AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER. Signed on 10/20/11 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

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

MIRIAM ORDONEZ-LOPEZ et al.,
No. 3:10-cv-936-AC
Plaintiffs,
AMENDED1 OPINION AND ORDER
v.
VASILY IVANOV et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On July 13, 2011, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) [33] in the above-captioned case recommending that plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney
Fees [28] be granted in its entirety and that plaintiffs be awarded attorney fees in the total
amount of $11,305.00. No objections were filed.

1

This Opinion and Order is being amended only to acknowledge that while the Findings
and Recommendation issued by Judge Acosta identifies only six plaintiffs in the caption, namely
Miriam Ordonez-Lopez, Carlos Ordonez Brindis, Valentina Mendoza, Carlos Mendoza, Roel
Martinez Esteves, and Rodrigo Salazar-Ramirez, and references only six plaintiffs in the body,
the Findings and Recommendation is being adopted with regard to all plaintiffs, including
Ocgareno Pastor-Soriano, who was added as a plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint.

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 Acosta’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [33]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.

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