Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

THOMAS C. RAY, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL MOSMAN, District Judge

On July 10, 2008, Magistrate Judge Papak issued Findings and Recommendation ("F R") (#67) in the above-captioned case recommending that I GRANT the defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#45) and DENY all other pending motions as moot. No objections to the F R have been filed (#68).

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 of 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, under a de novo or 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 of the magistrate judge's 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 (#67) as my own opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

RAY v. STATE
(Aug 1, 2008)