# Forter v. Brown

> District Court, D. Oregon · May 5, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10394690

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** May 5, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10394690

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

JEFFREY D. FORTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, No. 6:21-cv-00478-SB
V.
_« OPINION AND ORDER
GOVERNOR KATE BROWN, et al., ~
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On February 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and.
Recommendation (“F. & R.”) [ECF 29]. Judge Beckerman recommends that I deny the Motion
to Remand. Objections were due on February 17, 2022, but none were filed. I agree with Judge -
Beckerman.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
1—OPINION AND ORDER

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, reject,
or modify any part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation, I ADOPT her F. & R.
[ECF 29] as my own opinion, and I DENY the Motion to Remand [ECF 5].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this sk, of May, 2022.

MICHAEL W/MOSMAN
Seniot United Stites District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10394690. Public record. Not legal advice.