Abraham v. Clackamas County et al

Filing 51

OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 48 . Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 24 is Granted. Signed on 12/7/17 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)

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

ANDREW ABRAHAM,

No. 3:16-CV-01877-PK
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER

v.

CORIZON HEALTH, INC.,

Defendant.

MOSMAN,J.,

On November 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [48], reconnnending that Defendant Corizon Health's Motion for
Sunnnary Judgment [24] should be granted. No objections were filed.
DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only reconnnendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the reconnnendations 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
reconnnendation 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
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

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 review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [48]
as my own opinion. The Motion for Summary Judgment [24] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

~y of December, 2017.

Chief United States

2 - OPINION AND ORDER