Opinion
2:20-cv-01914-AR
10-28-2022
JONATHAN JASON RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. E. ANDERSON, et al., Defendants.
Jonathan Jason Rodriguez, Self-Represented Plaintiff. Michael R. Washington, Oregon Department of Justice, Attorney for Defendants.
Jonathan Jason Rodriguez, Self-Represented Plaintiff.
Michael R. Washington, Oregon Department of Justice, Attorney for Defendants.
ORDER
Karin J. Immergut, United States District Judge.
On October 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”). ECF 47. The F&R recommends that this Court deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 32, because Plaintiff's claims are not barred by the statute of limitations. No party filed objections. For the following reasons, this Court ADOPTS Judge Armistead's F&R in full.
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 to which no objections are addressed. 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
No party having filed objections, this Court has reviewed the F&R and accepts Judge Armistead's conclusions. The F&R, ECF 47, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 32.
IT IS SO ORDERED.