Johnson v. City of Portland ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ALICIA JOHNSON, in her personal capacity and as personal representative of the Estate of TERRELL JOHNSON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00735-JR Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER CITY OF PORTLAND, SAMSON AJIR, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On October 3, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [18], recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Make a More Definite Statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(e) [9] should be denied. Neither party objected. 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 conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas vy. 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). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [18] in full. I DENY Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or to Make a More Definite Statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(e). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 22 _ day of October, 2019. VWlechal U) Weeman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge 2 —OPINION AND ORDER