United States of America, ex rel. Pragathi Gogineni and Ravindra Gogineni et al v. Fargo Pacific Inc. et al, No. 1:2017cv00096 - Document 163 (D. Guam 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Bordallo's recommendation, and I ADOPT the R&R [ECF 146] as my own opinion. Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF 88, 94] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I GRANT Defendants' motion and enter summary judgment as to Count One. I DENY Defendants' motion as to Counts Two, Three, and Four. Signed by Senior District Judge Michael W Mosman on 4/5/2023. (Scheele, Kara)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States of America, ex rel. Pragathi Gogineni and Ravindra Gogineni...Fargo Pacific Inc. et al Doc. 163 IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY OF GUAM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. RAVINDRA GOGINENI, v. Plaintiff-Relator, No. 1 :17-cv-00096 OPINION AND ORDER FARGO PACIFIC INC. et al., Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On January 9, 2023, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Bordallo issued his Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [ECF 146], recommending that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF 88, 94] be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff and Defendants objected to the R&R. See [ECF 152] (Plaintiff); [ECF 151, 154] (Defendants). The Parties also filed responses to each other's objections. See [ECF 157, 158] (Plaintiff); [ECF 160, 161] (Defendants). 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 nova 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)(l )(C). However, the court is not required to review, de nova or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Case 1:17-cv-00096 Document 163 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com the magistrate judge as to those portions of the R&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 R&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 R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Bordallo's recommendation, and I ADOPT the R&R [ECF 146] as my own opinion. Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF 88, 94] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I GRANT Defendants' motion and enter summary judgment as to Count One. I DENY Defendants' motion as to Counts Two, Three, and Four. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5th Day of April M Senior United States District Judge 2 - OPINION AND ORDER Case 1:17-cv-00096 Document 163 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 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.
