Opinion
Case No. 3:18-cv-00522-AC
07-31-2020
MICHELLE MANOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,
On July 6, 2020, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [ECF 44], recommending that I GRANT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 37], and that I DENY Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 34]. No objections were filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
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).
CONCLUSION
Upon review of the F&R, I agree with Judge Acosta's analysis and conclusions. Therefore, I ADOPT his F&R [44] in full. I GRANT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [37] and I DENY Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [34]. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of July, 2020.
/s/_________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge