Gramajo v. Nooth, No. 2:2015cv02341 - Document 94 (D. Or. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Upon review, I agree with Judge You's order and I DENY Petitioner's Motion for Discovery 55 . IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 9/25/2019 by Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

Download PDF
Gramajo v. Nooth Doc. 94 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EBER GRAMAJO, Case No. 2:15-cv-2341-YY Petitioner, v. OPINION AND ORDER MARKNOOTH, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Defendant. MOSMAN,J., On March 29, 2019, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Order [70], directing that Petitioner's Motion for Discovery [55] be DENIED. Petitioner objected [86], and Defendant filed a response [92]. 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)(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 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). If the magistrate judge has ruled on a non-dispositive matter, her decision is modified only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court is not required, however, to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the order to which no objections are addressed. Id. While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the order depends on whether objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge You's order and I DENY Petitioner's Motion for Discovery [5 5]. IT IS SO ORDERED. ,., DATED this ~- l/S day of September, 2019. MICHAEL W. OSMAN Chief United Sates 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.