Opinion
No. 3:13-cv-00497-HU
12-06-2013
PENGUIN GROUP (USA) INC., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BUDDHA, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
MOSMAN, J.,
On September 16, 2013, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [74] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Defendant's Motion to Change or Transfer Venue [25] be GRANTED. Plaintiff objected [76] and Defendant responded [79]. I granted Plaintiff leave to submit a reply [82], which was then filed [83].
DISCUSSION
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 as 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 party has objected. 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 I am required to apply to 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 [74] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge