Hawkins v. City of Eugene

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CHRISTOPHER HAWKINS, Case No. 6:24-cv-00951-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING F&R

v.

CITY OF EUGENE and JOHN DOES I-V,

Defendants.

John Burgess and Carl Post, Law Offices of Daniel Snyder, 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400, Portland, OR 97205. Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Ben Miller, Eugene City Attorney’s Office, 500 East Fourth Avenue, Suite 301, Eugene, OR 97401. Attorney for Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

Before this Court is a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Christopher Hawkins. ECF 18. Magistrate Judge Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to allow him to amend his complaint to remove his state law claims, but deny it in all other respects. ECF 33. This Court has reviewed de novo the portion of the F&R to which Plaintiff objected. ECF 35. This Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s F&R in full. 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. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Russo’s F&R to which Plaintiff objected, ECF 35. Judge Russo’s F&R, ECF 33, is adopted in full. This Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, ECF 18, as to Plaintiff’s removal of his state law claims, but DENIES the motion in all other respects. Plaintiff must file his amended

complaint within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2025.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge