No. 3:09-cv-913-AC.United States District Court, D. Oregon.
October 20, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL MOSMAN, Magistrate Judge
On September 17, 2010, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (“F R”) (#39) in the above-captioned case recommending that Casey Moreland’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#14) be granted. World Communications Center, Inc. did not file objections.
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 is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal
Page 2
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 of the magistrate judge’s F R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F R (#39) as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2010.
Page 1