Waibel Ranches, LLC et al v. United States of America, No. 2:2015cv02071 - Document 163 (D. Or. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Hallman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 149 as my own opinion. Accordingly, I GRANT the United States' Motion to Dismiss 110 . I dismiss Waibel' s first, fifth, and sixth claims with prejudice. I dismiss Waibel's second, third, and fourth claims without prejudice. Signed on 7/14/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dsg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Waibel Ranches, LLC et al v. United States of America Doc. 163 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PENDLETON DIVISION WAIBEL RANCHES, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company, WAIBEL PROPERTIES, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-02071-HL OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MOSMAN,J., On April 14, 2022, Magistrate Judge Andrew Hallman issued his Findings and Recommendation [ECF 149] ("F&R"), recommending that I grant the United States' Motion to Dismiss [ECF 1101 F&R at 20~21. Plaintiffs Waibel Ranches and Waibel Properties Gointly, "Waibel") filed timely objections [ECF 155], to which the United States responded [ECF 161]. Without leave to do so, Waibel filed a reply to the United States' response [ECF 162]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Hallman. 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 1 - OPINION & ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 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)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Hallman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 149] as my own opinion. Accordingly, I GRANT the United States' Motion to Dismiss [ECF 11 OJ. I dismiss Waibel' s first, fifth, and sixth claims with prejudice. I dismiss Waibel' s second, third, and fourth claims without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 1.i--day of July, 2022. es District Judge 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.
