# Reutov v. Tatanca Health Care Plan

> District Court, D. Oregon · May 17, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10394742

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** May 17, 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/10394742

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON .
PORTLAND DIVISION

ANTONINA REUTOV,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:20-cv-01181-AR
v. OPINION AND ORDER
TATANCA HEALTH CARE PLAN,
TATANCA HEALTH CARE PLAN
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, d/b/a Omnis :
Benefit Administrator,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On April 28, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 52], recommending that I deny without prejudice Plaintiff
Antonina Reutov’s Motion for Default Judgment [ECF 48]. Objections were due May 12, 2022,
but none were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge Armistead.
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
is not 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 Armistead recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R
52] as my own opinion. I DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [ECF 48]
without prejudice.
ITIS SO ee he
DATED this i day of May, 2022.

Senior United States District Judge

2 ~ OPINION & ORDER

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10394742. Public record. Not legal advice.