Bond v. Shriners Hospitals for Children

D. Oregon

Bond v. Shriners Hospitals for Children

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided April 9, 2021·No. 3:20-cv-01943·Unknown

Opinion

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

LORI BOND,

Plaintiff, v. No. 3:20-cv-01943-SB

SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR OPINION AND ORDER CHILDREN, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On March 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 16]. Judge Beckerman recommended that I deny Plaintiff Lori Bond’s Motion to Remand and Motion to Amend Complaint [ECF 6] and grant Defendant Shriners Hospitals for Children’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 4]. Plaintiff filed objections [ECF 18] and Defendant filed a response [ECF 19]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman and dismiss this case without prejudice. 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 the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F. & R. to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas vy. 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 findings and recommendation and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 16]. I DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Motion to Amend Complaint [ECF 6] and GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 4]. This case is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this _9 _ day of April, 2021.

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

LORI BOND,

Plaintiff, v. No. 3:20-cv-01943-SB

SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR OPINION AND ORDER CHILDREN, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On March 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 16]. Judge Beckerman recommended that I deny Plaintiff Lori Bond’s Motion to Remand and Motion to Amend Complaint [ECF 6] and grant Defendant Shriners Hospitals for Children’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 4]. Plaintiff filed objections [ECF 18] and Defendant filed a response [ECF 19]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman and dismiss this case without prejudice. 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 the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F. & R. to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas vy. 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 findings and recommendation and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 16]. I DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Motion to Amend Complaint [ECF 6] and GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 4]. This case is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this _9 _ day of April, 2021.

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER

Bond v. Shriners Hospitals for Children, (D. Or. 2021).

Pincite

Bond v. Shriners Hospitals for Children (Bond v. Shriners Hospitals for Children) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related