Reutov v. Tatanca Health Care Plan et al, No. 3:2020cv01181 - Document 64 (D. Or. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Armistead's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 60 ] as my own opinion. Plaintiff's Second Motion for Default Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Damages [ECF 55 ] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I ENTER JUDGMENT for Plaintiff in the amount of $8,492 and GRANT attorney fees of $32,533.50. Signed on 8/8/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (joha)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Reutov v. Tatanca Health Care Plan et al Doc. 64 Case 3:20-cv-01181-AR Document 64 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT FOR THE DISTRJCT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ANTONINA REUTOV, No. 3:20-cv-01181-AR Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER V. TATAN CA HEALTH CARE PLAN et al., Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On July 13, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jeffery Armistead issued his Findings and Recommendation (F &R) [ECF 60], recommending that Plaintiffs Second Motion for Default Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Damages [ECF 55] should be granted in part and denied in part, and that I enter judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $8,492 and grant attorney fees of $32,533.50. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. 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)(l)(C). However, the court 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-01181-AR Document 64 Filed 08/08/22 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)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Armistead's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 60] as my own opinion. Plaintiffs Second Motion for Default Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Damages [ECF 55] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I ENTER mDGMENT for Plaintiff in the amount of $8,492 and GRANT attorney fees of $32,533.50. IT IS SO ORDERED. /~ DATED this · day of August, 2022. M1CHAEL W. MO MAN Senior 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.
