Blocker v. BET et al, No. 3:2017cv01406 - Document 87 (D. Or. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendation and ADOPT the F&R 83 in full. Defendants BETs and Amazons Motions to Dismiss 61 , 62 are GRANTED, BETs Request for Judicial Notice 70 is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs Amended Complaint 59 is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed on 3/28/2019 by Judge Michael W. Mosman.(Mailed to Pro Se party on 3/28/2019.) (kms)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Blocker v. BET et al Doc. 87 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION TYRONE BLOCKER, No. 3:17-cv-01406-AC Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION, LLC and AMAZON, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On March 6, 2019, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [83], recommending that Defendants BET’s and Amazon’s Motions to Dismiss [61], [62] be granted, BET’s Request for Judicial Notice [70] be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [59] be dismissed with prejudice. 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 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). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [83] in full. Defendants BET’s and Amazon’s Motions to Dismiss [61], [62] are GRANTED, BET’s Request for Judicial Notice [70] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [59] is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ____ 28th day of March, 2019. _______________________ 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.
