Roberts et al v. Carton, No. 3:2008cv01071 - Document 72 (D. Or. 2009)

Court Description: Opinion and Order: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 70 . Signed on 6/5/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (cib)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON LISA ROBERTS et al., No. CV 08-1071-AC Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER v. MARK CARTON, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On December 8, 2008, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#45) in the above-captioned case recommending that defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#5) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without prejudice. Specifically, Judge Acosta recommends the defendant's (1) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim be DENIED as to Claims 1 and 2 and GRANTED as to Claim 3; (2) Motion to Dismiss Because Claims Barred by Laches be DENIED; (3) Motion to Dismiss Because Claims Barred by Judicial Estoppel be DENIED; (4) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be DENIED; and (5) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Necessary Parties be DENIED. Judge Acosta also recommends that defendant's Amended Motion to Require Plaintiffs to Post Undertaking (#30) be DENIED with prejudice, and plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (#28) be GRANTED. Defendant filed objections to the F&R (#48). PAGE 1 - OPINION & ORDER 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 of 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, under a de novo or 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 of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#45) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 2nd day of February, 2009. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court PAGE 2 - OPINION & ORDER

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.