The opinion
. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DAVID H. BROWN, .
Case No. 6:20-cv-00231-JR
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
JEFF PREMO, Oregon State Penitentiary
Facility Warden, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On August 10, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and
Recommendation (““F&R”) [ECF 21], recommending that this court grant Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss [ECF 15]. No objections were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo. 1 GRANT
the motion and DISMISS this case.
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
isnot required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
1 ~ OPINION & ORDER
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 Russo’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [21]. □
GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [15] and DISMISS this case with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. □
DATED this SW ot Ev ian 2020.
United States District Judge
2 — OPINION & ORDER