Opinion
2:21-cv-01175-SB
01-30-2024
JUAN MANUEL REYES, Plaintiff, v. SUSAN WASHBURN, Superintendent of EOCI, ANDREA NEISTADT, Assistant Superintendent of EOCI, L. LEGORE, Law Library Supervisor of EOCI, C. BOLLES, Law Library Coordinator, CAPT. J. WALKER, Operations Capt., CAPT. T. STEWART, Institutional Capt., P. VILLERS, Law Library Coordinator of E.O.C.I., and MS. M. JOHNSON, Law Library Coordinator of E.O.C.I., Defendants.
Juan Manuel Reyes, 21302533, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institute, Pro Se. Molly K. Honore, Chad A. Naso, Jermaine Brown, Kerry J. Shepherd, R. Kyle Busse, and April Stone, Markowitz Herbold PC, Attorneys for Defendants.
Juan Manuel Reyes, 21302533, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institute, Pro Se.
Molly K. Honore, Chad A. Naso, Jermaine Brown, Kerry J. Shepherd, R. Kyle Busse, and April Stone, Markowitz Herbold PC, Attorneys for Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING JUDGE BECKERMAN'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Karin J. Immergut, United States District Judge
Plaintiff has not filed any objections to Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 65, recommending the denial of his Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 48. Nonetheless, this Court has reviewed the F&R and ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's F&R.
STANDARDS
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge's F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R that are not objected to. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
CONCLUSION
Judge Beckerman's F&R, ECF 65, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 48.
IT IS SO ORDERED.