Garton et al v. McClintock et al

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER. I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R 13 as my own opinion. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion to Strike 9 are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 4/18/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)

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

KALVIN B. GARTON and
SILVA A. GARTON,
No. 3:16-cv-01953-SB
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
GALE ANDREW McCLINTOCK
and PATRICIA L. McCLINTOCK,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On February 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [13], recommending that I GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
and DENY AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion to Strike [9].
Plaintiffs filed their Objections to the F&R [16] on February 21, 2017.
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

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

recommendation 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 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 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)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R
[13] as my own opinion. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Defendants’ Motion
to Transfer Venue and Motion to Strike [9] are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
DATED this ______ day of April, 2017.

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

2 – OPINION AND ORDER