Deverell v. Rex et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
OPINION AND ORDER
DR. JOHN REX et al.,
On July 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) , recommending that I GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment .
To the extent the language in Plaintiff’s response  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.
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
 as my own opinion. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment  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.
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?