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

TORIANDRE T. GIVENS, . No. 3:22-cv-00772-YY Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER DELORISE LAWSON etal., _

. Defendants. MOSMAN, J., . On August 30, 2022, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 9], recommending that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [ECF 4] be granted. Defendants filed objections [ECF 11], and Plaintiff responded [ECF 12]. 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 addressed. See

1 —OPINION AND ORDER

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 You’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 9] as my own opinion. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand [ECF 4] is GRANTED.

ITIS SO ORDERED. DATED this of September, 2022.

Senior United District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER