Martinez v. Williams et al, No. 3:2009cv00580 - Document 77 (D. Or. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation 69 Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 36 ; and Granting Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment 45 . Signed on 1/5/11 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (mkk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martinez v. Williams et al Doc. 77 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRiCT COURT FlLElI~l1 JAN 0516:57USDC-oRP FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DMSION MICHAEL M. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, No. CV 09-580-ST v. OPINION AND ORDER MAX WILLIAMS (Director, Oregon Department of Corrections); MARK NOOTH (Superintendent Snake River Correctional Institution); SNAKE RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION TOWER SHOOTER "X" (NUNN or DUNN?), Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On November 9, 2010, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#69) in the above-captioned case recommending that I deny Martinez's Motion for Summary Judgment (#36) and grant defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (#45). Plaintiff filed objections (#74) to which defendants filed a response (#75). 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, hut retains responsibility for making the final detenmnation. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination ofthose portions of the report or speCified findings or OPINION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 FJd 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I aI1l 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)(l)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart's recommendation in every respect, and I ADOPT Judge Stewart's F&R (#69) as my own, I DENY plaintiff Martinez's Motion for Swnmary Judgment (#36), and I GRANT defendants' Cross Motion for Swnmary Judgment (#45). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ~ay of January, 2011. ~ MICHAEL W. MO United States District Court OPINION AND ORDER - 2
]]>
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.
