November 4, 2013
SEAN GORDON WESTCOTT, Plaintiff,
TASHA BLACK, THERESA ARENDELL, BETHANY SMITH, MICHAEL GOWER, MAXWELL WILLIAMS, and JOSEPH McCOOL, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.
On September 4, 2013, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R")  in the above-captioned case, recommending that summary judgment be granted for Defendants on Mr. Westcott's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Mr. Westcott objected , and Defendants responded .
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. I am not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge; instead, I retain responsibility for making the final determination. I am required to review de novo those portions of the report or any specified findings or recommendations within it to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, I am 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 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).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R  as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.