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

SCOTT CHAFFIN, Plaintiff, No. 3:19-cv-00155-SB . OPINION AND ORDER APPLE, INC., Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., On June 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [13], recommending that I grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [8]. Neither party filed objections to the F&R. 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.

(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

1 — OPINION AND ORDER

addressed. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(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.

(b)(1)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [13] in full. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [8] is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this C6 day of July, 2019. (\W / Wiig co MICHAEL W. SMAN Chief United States District Judge

2 OPINION AND ORDER