Ashley v. Walmart Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION JOSHUA ASHLEY and KATIE ASHLEY,

Plaintiffs, No. 3:19-cv-01115-SB ° OPINION AND ORDER

WALMART, INC.,

Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,

On April 20, 2021, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 57]. Judge Beckerman recommended that I deny Defendant Walmart, Inc.’s motion for partial summary judgment. Walmart filed objections. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman.

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 1 —OPINION AND ORDER 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 J 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 Beckerman’s findings and recommendation, and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 57] as my own opinion. | DENY Walmart’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 35].

IT IS SO ORDERED. x Tone DATED this 4 day of 2021.

(Wd J rer

MICHAEL W. MOS

United States District Judge 2 — OPINION AND ORDER