Makaneole v. Solarworld Industries America, Inc. et al

Filing 398

OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 393 . I Grant Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement 374 as revised by the Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 391 . Signed on 6/2/22 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)

Case 3:14-cv-01528-JR

Document 398

Filed 06/03/22

Page 1 of 2

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

MICHAEL MAKANEOLE, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals,

Case No. 3:14-cv-01528-JR

Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES
AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN,J.,
On May 17,"2022, Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo issued her Amended Findings and
'

~

" ~-

Recommendation ('ff. 8t R:")' [ECF 393]. Judge Russo withdraws her F. & R. from May 2, 2022,
[ECF 389] and recommends that I grant Plaintiffs Motion for Settlement [ECF 374] as revised
by the Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [ECF 391].
The parties filed notice with the Court indicating they would not be filing objections. I agree
with Judge Russo.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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)(l)(C). However, the court
1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01528-JR

Document 398

Filed 06/03/22

Page 2 of 2

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)(l)(C).
CONCLUSION

Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo's recommendation. I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF
393] as my own opinion. I GRANT Plaintiffs Motion for Settlement [ECF 374] as revised by
the Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [ECF 391].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ?~ay of June, 2022.

2 - OPINION AND ORDER