Ferry v. Doohan

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RICHARD FERRY, No. 3:18-cv-00153-AC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

KEVIN DOOHAN, Washington County Community Corrections (WCCC) Post- Prison Supervision Officer (PPO); JOE SIMICH, WCCC, Director; MICHAEL WU, Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (BPPPS) Chair; BROOKE VICE, WCCC PPO; NELLIE MCDONALD, WCCC PPO; and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation on August 3, 2021, in which he recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and enter a judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. F&R, ECF 127. 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 filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. Pl. Obj., ECF 131. When 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 (9th 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 & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation [127].

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [116] and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [107]. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___O_c_t_o_b_e_r_ 2__7_, _2_0_2_1______.

___________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge