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

JAMES DAVISON et al., Plaintiffs, Vv. No. 3:20-cv-01387-AC FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY, OPINION AND ORDER GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, Defendant. .

MOSMAN, J . On June 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 22]. Judge Acosta recommended that I grant Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 5] and deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 14]. No objections were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta. 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 1 — OPINION AND ORDER

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F. & R. to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas vy. 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 Acosta’s findings and recommendation, and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 22] as my own opinion. [ GRANT Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 5] and DENY Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 14]. ITIS SO ORDERED. DATED this ayy of June, 2021.

MICHAEL vane AN United States istricl, udge

2 OPINION AND ORDER