Nieves v. Ryder Last Mile, Inc.

Opinion

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

CARLOS NIEVES,

Plaintiff, No. 3:22-cv-00094-AR V. OPINION AND ORDER RYDER LAST MILE, INC. et al., Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On October 13, "'2022� Iv1agistrate Judge Jeffrey A1mistead issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [ECF 23], recommending that Defendant Ryder Last Mile, Inc.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss [ECF 12] be granted in part and denied in part. Neither patty filed objections. 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)(l)(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 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th 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’s recommendation, and | ADOPT the F&R [ECF 23] as my own opinion. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 12] is DENIED as to Claim 2 and Claim 3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Claim 4. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this qt of January, 2023.

Vie, NA WM (iefire. Senior United States District Judge