Lovell v. Bishop

Full title: DON D. LOVELL, Plaintiff, v. SAMANTHA BISHOP and SHARON BROWN, Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, District of Oregon

Date published: Feb 13, 2023

6:20-cv-00804-SB (D. Or. Feb. 13, 2023)

Opinion

6:20-cv-00804-SB

02-13-2023

DON D. LOVELL, Plaintiff, v. SAMANTHA BISHOP and SHARON BROWN, Defendants.

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:

ORDER

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation on January 6, 2023, in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. F&R, ECF 82. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. Pl. Obj., ECF 84.1When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9^th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation [82]. Therefore, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [66] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.