Bond v. State of Oregon et al

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER. Upon careful review, I agree with Judge You's recommendations and ADOPT the F&R 28 as my own opinion. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 12 is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. The motion is GRANTED as to Ms. Bond's state-law negligence claim, which is DISMISSED without prejudice. The motion is DENIED as to her Section 1983 claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 7/25/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

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

LINDA ANNE BOND,
No. 3:16-cv-00648-YY
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
STATE OF OREGON et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On July 6, 2017, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [28], recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [12] should be GRANTED as to Ms. Bond’s state-law negligence claim and DENIED
as to Ms. Bond’s Section 1983 claim. 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
court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 You’s recommendations and ADOPT the F&R
[28] as my own opinion. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [12] is GRANTED in
PART and DENIED in PART. The motion is GRANTED as to Ms. Bond’s state-law negligence
claim, which is DISMISSED without prejudice. The motion is DENIED as to her Section 1983
claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
DATED this _____ day of July, 2017.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman
______________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER