Wilson v. Oregon Department of Human Services ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION MELVIA WILSON, No. 3:22-cv-00303-JR Plaintiff, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN OPINION AND ORDER SERVICES, et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On October 17, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 29] recommending that I grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF 21]. No objections to the F&R were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo, and I GRANT the Motion to Dismiss. 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 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 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 [ECF 29] as my own opinion. The Motion to Dismiss [ECF 21] is GRANTED. Any motion to amend the complaint must conform with the F&R and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and be filed within 30 days of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED this day of November, 2022. Wwe’ MICHAEL W. M AN Senior United Statés District Judge 2 — OPINION AND ORDER