Christoferson v. Thomas, No. 3:2009cv01155 - Document 85 (D. Or. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: The Court agrees with Judge Jelderks' recommendation and ADOPTS the F&R 83 as its own opinion. See 2-page opinion and order attached. Signed on 6/17/2015 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (mr)

Download PDF
Christoferson v. Thomas Doc. 85 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION CHARLES CHRISTOFERSON, No. 3:09-cv-01155-JE Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. WARDEN J.E. THOMAS, et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On May 27, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [83], recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies [78] should be GRANTED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation 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 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 Jelderks’ recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [83] as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 17th day of June, 2015. /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.