Deverell v. Rex et al

Filing 45

OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 43 . Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 26 is Granted, and Plaintiff's motion to strike and motion to stay proceedings are Denied. Plaintiff's case is Dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 8/3/17 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION NINA DEVERELL, No. 3:15-cv-00836-PK Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. DR. JOHN REX et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On July 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [43], recommending that I GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [26]. To the extent the language in Plaintiff’s response [38] is intended as a motion to strike Defendant Shelton’s declaration and a motion to stay further proceedings, Judge Papak recommends that I DENY those motions. Neither party objected to the F&R. 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 recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the 1 – OPINION AND ORDER 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 with 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 careful review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendations and ADOPT the F&R [43] as my own opinion. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [26] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion to strike and motion to stay proceedings are DENIED. Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3rd DATED this _____ day of August, 2017. /s/ Michael W. Mosman ___________________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief 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?