Manor v. Sessions ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MICHELLE MANOR, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:18-cy-00522-AC v. OPINION AND ORDER JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, IIL, U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On July 6, 2020, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation CF&R”) [ECF 44], recommending that I GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary J udgment [ECF 37], and that I DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 34]. No objections were filed. LEGAL STANDARD 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 1 — OPINION AND ORDER 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 FRR 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 of the F&R, I agree with Judge Acosta’s analysis and conclusions. Therefore, I ADOPT his F&R [44] in full. I GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary J udgment [37] and I DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [34]. This case is DISMIS SED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED tis Zl Fas of 2020. United States District Judge OPINION AND ORDER