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)

Download PDF
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

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?