Solano v. Kroger Co.

D. Oregon

Solano v. Kroger Co.

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided August 4, 2022·No. 3:18-cv-01488·Unknown

Opinion

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

ELISHA SOLANO et al., individually and on behalf of other customers, No. 3:18-cv-01488-AR Plaintiffs, v. OPINION AND ORDER THE KROGER CO., doing business as Fred Meyer, Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., On May 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jeffery Armistead issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [ECF 88], recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Certain Plaintiffs’ Claims Without Prejudice and Without Conditions [ECF 67] and Motion for Protective Order [ECF 68] should be granted. Defendant filed its objections [ECF 92], and Plaintiffs responded [ECF 95]. 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

1 — OPINION AND ORDER

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 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 I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 88] as my own opinion. The Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Certain Plaintiffs’ Claims Without Prejudice and Without Conditions [ECF 67] and Motion for Protective Order [ECF 68] are GRANTED. _ IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this of August, 2022.

Se t Unite d 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

ELISHA SOLANO et al., individually and on behalf of other customers, No. 3:18-cv-01488-AR Plaintiffs, v. OPINION AND ORDER THE KROGER CO., doing business as Fred Meyer, Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., On May 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jeffery Armistead issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [ECF 88], recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Certain Plaintiffs’ Claims Without Prejudice and Without Conditions [ECF 67] and Motion for Protective Order [ECF 68] should be granted. Defendant filed its objections [ECF 92], and Plaintiffs responded [ECF 95]. 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

1 — OPINION AND ORDER

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 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 I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 88] as my own opinion. The Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Certain Plaintiffs’ Claims Without Prejudice and Without Conditions [ECF 67] and Motion for Protective Order [ECF 68] are GRANTED. _ IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this of August, 2022.

Se t Unite d States District Judge

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Solano v. Kroger Co., (D. Or. 2022).

Pincite

Solano v. Kroger Co. (Solano v. Kroger Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related