Abraham v. Corizon Health Inc., No. 3:2016cv01877 - Document 51 (D. Or. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 48 . Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 24 is Granted. Signed on 12/7/17 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)

Download PDF
Abraham v. Corizon Health Inc. Doc. 51 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ANDREW ABRAHAM, No. 3:16-CV-01877-PK Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., Defendant. MOSMAN,J., On November 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [48], reconnnending that Defendant Corizon Health's Motion for Sunnnary Judgment [24] should be granted. No objections were filed. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only reconnnendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the reconnnendations 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 reconnnendation 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 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)(l)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [48] as my own opinion. The Motion for Summary Judgment [24] is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this of December, 2017. Chief United States 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.