Gorman v. Netflix, Inc.

Filing 32

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewarts recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 28 as my own opinion, 13 . Signed on 9/30/2011 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
CRYSTAL WEAVER,
No. 3:10-cv-01118-ST
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware
Corporation
Defendant.
MOSMAN, J.,
On August 16, 2011, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) [28] in the above-captioned case recommending that defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [13] be denied. No objections 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
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

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 Stewart’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [28]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

30

day of September, 2011.

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

2 – OPINION AND ORDER