Rosenbalm v. United States Golf Association et al, No. 3:2015cv01701 - Document 38 (D. Or. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 32 . I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation that this case should be dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff's complete refusal to engage in the discovery process. Dismissal of the case renders the alternative motion for summary judgment 23 moot. This is consistent with my reading of Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation; I make no ruling on summary judgment because the terminating sanctions moot the summary judgment motion. Signed on 12/1/16 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rosenbalm v. United States Golf Association et al Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION VINCENT ROSENBALM, No. 3:15-cv-01701-PK Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. LINETTE BOGDAN; UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On October 7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [32], recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment [23] should be GRANTED. Plaintiff filed his Objections to the F&R [35] on October 20, 2016, and Defendants filed their Response [36] on November 3, 2016. For the reasons stated below, I ADOPT the F&R. 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 careful review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendation that this case should be dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff’s complete refusal to engage in the discovery process. Dismissal of the case renders the alternative motion for summary judgment moot. This is consistent with my reading of Judge Papak’s F&R; I make no ruling on summary judgment because the terminating sanctions moot the summary judgment motion. Therefore, I ADOPT Judge Papak’s F&R [32]. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 1st day of December, 2016. /s/ Michael W. Mosman_________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief 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.
