Johnson v. Guardian Management ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION LARRY JOHNSON et al., No. 3:21-cv-00947-JR (Lead Case) Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER v. GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT et al., Defendants. MICHELLE HUME et al., No. 3:21-cv-01439-JR (Trailing Case) Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS BARRY BRENNEKE JUNIOR et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On March 27, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 65]1 recommending that I deny Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees [ECF 56]. No objections were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo. I DENY the Motion for Attorney Fees. 1 All citations are to documents in the lead case. 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 obj ections 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 65] as my own opinion. The Motion for Attorney Fees [ECF 56] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ep wl hy. DATED this _2<“day of April, 2023. A Lp / | [ \ : [ LY le 7 □ Senior United States District Judge 2 — OPINION AND ORDER