Anand v. Inbasagaran, No. 3:2018cv02021 - Document 49 (D. Or. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 45 . I GRANT Mr. Inbasagaran's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 36 and DENY his Motion for Summary Judgment 37 . IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 13th day of July, 2020 by United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pjg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Anand v. Inbasagaran Case 3:18-cv-02021-MO Document 49 Filed 07/13/20 Doc. 49 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PRIYA ANAND, Case No. 3:18-cv-2021-AC Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. VIJAY INBASAGARAN, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On June 8, 2020, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 45], recommending that this court GRANT Mr. Inbasagaran’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF 36] and DENY his Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 37]. Plaintiff objected. [ECF 47]. Defendant filed a response. [ECF 48]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta, and I GRANT the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and DENY the Motion for Summary Judgment. 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:18-cv-02021-MO Document 49 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2 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, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [45]. I GRANT Mr. Inbasagaran’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [36] and DENY his Motion for Summary Judgment [37]. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 13 day of July, 2020. (YJ ~ ____________________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge ~~ 2 – OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
