Ritchie v. Staton et al, No. 3:2017cv00844 - Document 31 (D. Or. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 29 as my own opinion. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 11 is GRANTED with prejudice as to the First Claim for Relief, and GRANTED without prejudice as to the Second Claim for Relief, to the extent that Plaintiff may refile the Second Claim in state court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 5/16/18 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
Download PDF
Ritchie v. Staton et al Doc. 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION BRENT RITCHIE, Case No. 3:17-cv-00844-AC Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER DANIEL STATON, Multnomah County Sheriff; by and through the MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, a political subdivision of Multnomah County, Oregon, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On March 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [29], recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [11] should be granted with prejudice as to the First Claim for Relief, and granted without prejudice as to the Second Claim for Relief, to the extent that Plaintiff may refile the Second Claim in state court. No objections 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 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 Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [29] as my own opinion. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [11] is GRANTED with prejudice as to the First Claim for Relief, and GRANTED without prejudice as to the Second Claim for Relief, to the extent that Plaintiff may refile the Second Claim in state court. IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED this ____ day of May, 2018. /s/ Michael W. Mosman _______________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge 2 – OPINION AND ORDER