The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
ANTONINA REUTOV,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01181-AC
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
TATANCA HEALTH CARE PLAN,
TATANCA HEALTH CARE PLAN
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, dba Omnis
Benefit Administrator,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On June 9, 2021, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 25], recommending that this court deny Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer Venue [ECF 15]. No objections were filed. Upon review,
I agree with Judge Acosta. | DENY the motion.
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
1 — OPINION & ORDER
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 y. 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, rej ect, 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 [ECF
25]. I DENY Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Transfer Venue [ECF 15].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this day of September, 2021.
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge
OPINION & ORDER