Hampton v. Trackwell, No. 2:2010cv01233 - Document 24 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING Motion to Remand Case to State Court 6 ; ADOPTING Findings and Recommendation 21 . Signed on 2/11/2011 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
Hampton v. Trackwell Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON BRUCE HAMPTON, CV 10-1233-SU Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. LLOYD R. TRACKWELL, JR., Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On January 20, 2011, Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation ( F&R ) (#21) in the above-captioned case recommending that the Motion to Remand (#6) be granted and all other motions be denied as moot. No objections were filed. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 of the magistrate judge s F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Sullivan s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#21) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 11th day of February, 2011. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.