United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.
On April 30, 2014, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R")  in the above-captioned case, recommending that summary judgment be granted for Mr. Westermeyer on all of Mr. Johnson's claims. Mr. Johnson objected , and Dr. Westermeyer 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 Stewart's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R  as my own opinion. Accordingly, Dr. Westermeyer's Motion for Summary Judgment  is GRANTED and Mr. Johnson's Motion for Summary Judgment  is DENIED. Further, Mr. Johnson's Objection to Order Granting Defendant's Motion To Withdraw Motion for Summary Judgment  is deemed referred for review under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ...