Colton v. Walmart, Inc. ( 2021 )

INT HEU NITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T FORT HED ISTROIFCO TR EGON PORTLADNIDV ISION ANDREWC OLTON, Plaintiff, V. No3.: 20-cv-01895- WALMARITN,C e.ta l., OPINIAONNDO RDER Defendants. MOSMAN,J., OnA pr7i2,l0 2M1a,g isJturdaJgtoeelA i.Re u sissos hueeFrdi ndainndg s Recommen(dF&a. Rt .i[)oE nC3 F6 J]u.d Rgues rseoc ommtehnIadg ter dai nnpt a arntdd e niyn paDretfe ndaMnottsit'ooD n i sm[iEsC2sF1 a ]n dde naysm ooDte fendaMnottsit'ooS n t rike [EC3F1 N]e.i tphaerfirtl yeo db jecUtpioornne sv.iIa e gwr,we ietJ hu dRgues so. DISCUSSION Thmea gisjturdmagateke oe nslr ye commentdota hcteoi uotrnowts h, i acnhpy a rmtayy filwrei ttoebnj ecTthiceoo nuisrns.to b to ubnytd h ree commenodfta hmteai goinssjt urdagtee, burte traeisnpso nfosrim baiklitinhtgey d feitnearlm iTnhcaeot uiirogstne .n erreaqluliyr ed to makaed en ovdae termriengaatrtidhoionpns oger toifto hnrese poorsr pte cfiifnideoidrn gs recommeansdt aowt hiiaocnonh b jeicmsta ido2en8U. . S§.6 C3.6 (b)H(olw)e(vtCeh)cre.o, u rt inso rte qutiorr eevdid eenw o,vo aru ndaenroy t hsetra ntdhafaerc dt,ou rall e gcaoln clousfi ons 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 findings and recommendation, and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 36] as my own opinion. I GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiffs first, second, third, fourth, and sixth claims. I DENY as moot Defendants’ Motion to Strike [ECF 31]. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 14k of May, 2021. MICHAY LW. MO hs United States District Judge 2 — OPINION AND ORDER