Johnson v. Westermeyer, No. 3:2011cv00514 - Document 176 (D. Or. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewarts recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 170 as my own opinion. Accordingly, Dr. Westermeyers Motion for Summary Judgment 138 is GRANTED and Mr. Johnsons Motion for Summary Judgment [ 132] is DENIED. Further, Mr. Johnsons Objection to Order Granting Defendants Motion To Withdraw Motion for Summary Judgment 154 is deemed referred for review under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Judge Stewarts order 136 was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the objection is OVERRULED. Signed on 6/19/14 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION LARRY DALE JOHNSON, No. 3:11-cv-00514-ST Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. RAYMOND WESTERMEYER, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On April 30, 2014, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation ( F&R ) [170] in the above-captioned case, recommending that summary judgment be granted for Mr. Westermeyer on all of Mr. Johnson s claims. Mr. Johnson objected [174], and Dr. Westermeyer responded [175]. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. I am not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge; instead, I retain responsibility for making the final determination. I am required to review de novo those portions of the report or any specified findings or recommendations within it to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, I am not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those 1 OPINION AND ORDER 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 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). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [170] as my own opinion. Accordingly, Dr. Westermeyer s Motion for Summary Judgment [138] is GRANTED and Mr. Johnson s Motion for Summary Judgment [132] is DENIED. Further, Mr. Johnson s Objection to Order Granting Defendant s Motion To Withdraw Motion for Summary Judgment [154] is deemed referred for review under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Judge Stewart s order [136] was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the objection is OVERRULED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 19th day of June, 2014. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge 2 OPINION AND 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.
