Kadyk v. Long et al

Filing 56

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 54 as my own opinion. Signed on 6/5/13 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
DOUG KADYK,
No. 3:11-cv-01312-AC
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
GENE LONG, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On May 17, 2013, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) [54] in the above-captioned case recommending that Gene Long’s motion for summary
judgment [25] be granted in part and denied in part and, accordingly, that Doug Kadyk’s third
claim for relief—Intentional Interference with Economic Relations—be dismissed. Judge
Acosta also recommended that Tom Denchel Ford County’s motion for summary judgment [30]
be granted and, accordingly, that Mr. Kadyk’s second claim for relief—negligence—be
dismissed. In addition, Judge Acosta recommended that Mr. Kadyk’s motion for summary
judgment [34] be denied. Judge Acosta denied Tom Denchel Ford County’s motion to strike
[43], granted its motion for joinder [44], and denied Mr. Long’s motion to strike [46]. No
objections were filed.

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 [54]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

5th

day of June, 2013.

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

2 – OPINION AND ORDER