recognizing that a district court is not required to consider claims raised for the first time as objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that a district court is not required to consider claims raised for the first time as objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
WILLAMETTE BIOMASS
PROCESSORS, INC., an Oregon
Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01677-HL
Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER
v.
PERDUE AGRIBUSINESS LLC, a
Maryland limited liability company,
Defendant. :
MOSMAN, J.,
On April 25, 2022, Magistrate Judge Andrew Hallman issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 69], recommending that I grant Defendant Perdue Agribusiness
LLC’s (“Perdue”) Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Willamette Biomass Processors
(“WBP’) filed a timely response to those objections [ECF 75]. Upon review, I agree with Judge
Hallman.
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 FRR
depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject,
or modify any part of the FRR. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
In its objection to the F&R WBP raised a part-performance argument to satisfy the
statute of frauds. Obj. to F&R [ECF 75] at 16-18. Perdue had preempted this argument in its
Motion for Summary Judgment. Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF 38] at 15-16. WBP declined to discuss
this issue in its response, instead raising it for the first time now in its objection. As WBP did not
raise this argument before Judge Hallman, I decline to consider it here. Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d
742, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that a district court is not required to consider claims raised
for the first time as objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation).
WBP also objects to being classified as a sophisticated business entity. Obj. to F&R [ECF
75] at 21-23. But Judge Hallman’s analysis does not rest on the kind of “bright-line rule” that
WEP cautions against. Jd. at 22. Instead, Judge Hallman found that WBP had failed to present
evidence that its reliance on the terms discussed in the April teleconference was reasonably
foreseeable by Perdue. F&R [ECF 69] at 24-25.
Hf
OPINION & ORDER
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Hallman’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R
[ECF 69] as my own opinion. Accordingly, I GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and dismiss this case with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED thi@._ day of July, 2022. “9
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Senior United States/District Judge
3— OPINION & ORDER