Woods et al v. Staton et al
OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 61 . Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 30 is Granted and Plaintiffs' claims are Dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 8/23/17 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
LAURENCE WOODS and
OPINION AND ORDER
SHERIFF D. STATON and
On June 2, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation
("F&R") , recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment  should be
GRANTED. Plaintiff Woods objected  and Defendants responded .
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
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
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).
Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R
 as my own opinion. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment  is GRANTED and
Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this __Qday of August, 2017.
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?