Opinion
2:20-cv-01914-AR
12-18-2023
JONATHAN JASON RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. E. ANDERSON, S. BROWN, J. CUNA, T. HART, TURNER, BRADY, and N. SOBOTTA, Defendants.
Jonathan Jason Rodriguez, Portland, OR. Pro Se. Michael R. Washington, Oregon Department of Justice, Attorney for Defendants.
Jonathan Jason Rodriguez, Portland, OR. Pro Se.
Michael R. Washington, Oregon Department of Justice, Attorney for Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING F&R
Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge
On November 13, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 62, recommending that Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF 54, be GRANTED. No party filed objections. This Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Armistead's F&R.
LEGAL 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
No party having filed objections, this Court has reviewed the F&R, ECF 62, and accepts Judge Armistead's conclusions. Judge Armistead's F&R, ECF 62, is adopted in full. Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF 54.
IT IS SO ORDERED.