Wilson v. Oregon Department of Human Services et al, No. 3:2022cv00303 - Document 57 (D. Or. 2023)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation 54 . The Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice 50 is Granted and the Amended Motion for Leave to Amend 42 is Denied as Moot. Signed on 8/14/23 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)

Download PDF
Wilson v. Oregon Department of Human Services et al Case 3:22-cv-00303-JR Doc. 57 Document 57 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION MELVIA WILSON, Plaintiff, V. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, FARIBORZ PAKSERESHT, CAROLINA CABALLERO, LESSONIA ODIGHIZUA, JENNIFER DEVANE, ALEXIS ALBERTI, LINDA DELISLE, CHARLIE JENKINS, and REGINAL RICHARDSON, No. 3 :22-cv-00303-JR OPINION AND ORDER Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On July 13, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [ECF 54], recommending that I grant Melvia Wilson's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [ECF 50] and deny Wilsons' Motion for Leave to Amend as moot. Wilson filed objections to the F&R oh July 21, 2023 [ECF 56]. State Defendants did not file objections of responses. Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo. I GRANT the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and DENY the Motion for Leave to Amend. 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:22-cv-00303-JR Document 57 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 2 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 comi 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 comi 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 pati of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 54] as my own opinion. The Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice [ECF 50] is GRANTED and the Amended Motion for Leave to Amend [ECF 42] is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this day of August, 2023. 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.