From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

John Doe v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Aug 20, 2015
No. 3:15-cv-00385-ST (D. Or. Aug. 20, 2015)

Opinion

No. 3:15-cv-00385-ST

08-20-2015

JANE and JOHN DOE, individually and as Parents and Next Friends of DOE CHILD, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT, an Oregon municipal corporation; HEATHER BECK, an individual; JENNIFER SCHIELE, an individual; IAN LAMONT, an individual; KAYLA NORDLUM, an individual; ASHLEY NORDLUM, an individual; SUZANNE YOUNG, an individual; and UNKNOWN STAFF, UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS, Defendants.


OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,

On July 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Amended Findings and Recommendation [47], recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [15] should be GRANTED without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint adding Doe Parents' true names and Doe Child's initials. Plaintiffs filed their objections to the F&R [49], arguing that review is not necessary in light of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

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 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).

Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart's recommendation and I ADOPT the Amended F&R [47] as my own opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2015.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

John Doe v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Aug 20, 2015
No. 3:15-cv-00385-ST (D. Or. Aug. 20, 2015)
Case details for

John Doe v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist.

Case Details

Full title:JANE and JOHN DOE, individually and as Parents and Next Friends of DOE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Date published: Aug 20, 2015

Citations

No. 3:15-cv-00385-ST (D. Or. Aug. 20, 2015)

Citing Cases

A.G. v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.

The district courts in the Ninth Circuit routinely apply the five-factor test to decide the issue of whether…