Huffman v. Lindgren et al
OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 14 ] as my own opinion. I GRANT Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [ECF 8 ] as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Amy Lindgre n's employment and DENY the motion as to Plaintiff's other claims. I GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF 3 ] as to Plaintiff's remaining claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 9th day of May, 2022, by Senior United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pjg)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JAMES D. HUFFMAN,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00343-AC
OPINION AND ORDER
AMY LINDGREN, SAMUEL ERKSINE,
CITY OF ST. HELENS,
On April 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation ("F&R") [ECF 14], recommending that I grant in part and deny in paii
Plaintiffs Motion to Remand [ECF 8] and grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF 3].
Objections were due May 2, 2022, but none were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta.
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)(l)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
1 - OPINION & ORDER
Page 2 of 2
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)(l)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF
14] as my own opinion. I GRANT Plaintiffs Motion to Remand [ECF 8] as to Plaintiffs claims
against Defendant Amy Lindgren's employment and DENY the motion as to Plaintiffs other
claims. I GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF 3] as to Plaintiffs remaining claims.
IT IS SO ORDE~.
DATED this!/_ day of May, 2022.
2 - OPINION & 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?