Johnson v. Hayden, No. 3:2011cv00539 - Document 37 (D. Or. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewarts recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 35 as my own opinion, with one additional point. Mr. Johnson failed to respond to the motion to dismiss or object to the F&R. He therefore failed to explain how he might amend the complaint in a way that could remedy the problems defendant and Judge Stewart identified. This failure further supports dismissal with prejudice. Signed on 2/28/12 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-00539-ST Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. ROBERT HAYDEN, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On February 10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation ( F&R ) [35] in the above-captioned case, recommending that I grant defendant s motion to dismiss [24] and dismiss this case with prejudice. 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 1 OPINION AND ORDER 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 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)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [35] as my own opinion, with one additional point. Mr. Johnson failed to respond to the motion to dismiss or object to the F&R. He therefore failed to explain how he might amend the complaint in a way that could remedy the problems defendant and Judge Stewart identified. This failure further supports dismissal with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 28 day of February, 2012. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court 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.
