Toliver v. Clackamas County Jail et al

Filing 63

OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 59 . Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 40 is Granted and the claim Dismissed without prejudice and Motion to Dismiss 49 is Granted in Part and the claim D ismissed without prejudice as to Plaintiff's claims against Corizon Health and Denied in Part as to Plaintiff's claims against Brennan and Mandy. Signed on 2/2/18 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL** (Derrick Toliver, Prisoner ID: 17384926) (gm)

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

DERRICK T. TOLIVER,
No. 3:16-cv-02034-PK
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
CORIZON HEALTH, SHARRON BRENNAN,
MANDY, and CRAIG ROBERTS,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On November 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [59], recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [40] should be
GRANTED and Motion to Dismiss [49] should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Defendant Roberts objected [61].
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
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 Papak’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [59]
as my own opinion. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [40] is GRANTED and the claim dismissed
without prejudice and Motion to Dismiss [49] is GRANTED in part and the claim dismissed
without prejudice as to Plaintiff’s claims against Corizon Health and DENIED in part as to
Plaintiff’s claims against Brennan and Mandy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 2nd day of February, 2018.

/s/Michael W. Mosman

_______________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER