Alspach v. Wilcox et al

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Papaks recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 13 as my own opinion. Signed on 12/11/14 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

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

LUTHER RAYMOND ALSPACH,
No. 3:14-cv-01493-PK
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
MRS. X WILCOX, CASEY SPARTZ,
ANITA BURDICK DENHAM, and
SEQUOIA MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On November 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [13], recommending that pro se Plaintiff, Luther Raymond Alspach’s
Complaint [2] should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No objections to the Findings
and Recommendation were filed.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge only makes 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
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 Papak’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [13]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

11th

day of December, 2014.

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

2 – OPINION AND ORDER