Doe et al v. Lake Oswego School District et al
Filing
55
OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewarts recommendation and I ADOPT the Amended F&R 47 as my own opinion. Signed on 8/20/15 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
JANE and JOHN DOE, individually and as
Parents and Next Friends of DOE CHILD, a
minor,
No. 3:15-cv-00385-ST
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT, an
Oregon municipal corporation; HEATHER
BECK, an individual; JENNIFER SCHIELE, an
individual; IAN LAMONT, an individual;
KAYLA NORDLUM, an individual; ASHLEY
NORDLUM, an individual; SUZANNE YOUNG, an
individual; and UNKNOWN STAFF, UNKNOWN
INDIVIDUALS,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On July 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Amended Findings and
Recommendation [47], recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [15] should be
GRANTED without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint adding Doe Parents’
true names and Doe Child’s initials. Plaintiffs filed their objections to the F&R [49], arguing
that review is not necessary in light of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.
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 Stewart’s recommendation and I ADOPT the Amended
F&R [47] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
20th
day of August, 2015.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman ___
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge
2 – OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?