Hoge v. Washburn

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RANDY L. HOGE, JR., No. 2:23-cv-00128-JR

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER

v.

SUSAN WASHBURN, DAVID PEDRO, LIZA EMORY, SALLIE ROBERTS, SYDNEY HARTMAN, DR. WARREN ROBERTS, SANDRA WHITBREAD, APRIL STILLS, MICHELE DAVIES, JODIE RIZZOLO-BURKS, RACHELLE DOWNS, NINA SOBOTTA, and JOHN or JANE DOE(S),

Defendants.

BAGGIO, District Judge: On October 28, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”, ECF 86), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 69) and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 57). Plaintiff objected (ECF 88 & ECF 91) and Defendants responded (ECF 92). This Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s F&R. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). If a party objects, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.” /d. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 US. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). While the level of scrutiny that the court applies to its F&R review depends on whether a party has filed objections, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas, 474 USS. at 154. CONCLUSION Upon review, the Court agrees with Judge Russo’s recommendation and adopts the F&R (ECF 86) in full. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 69) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 57) is DENIED. Additionally, per Judge Russo’s rulings on non-dispositive motions, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (ECF 51) is DENIED, Plaintiff's Motion for Pro Bono Counsel (ECF 85) is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification (ECF 82) is GRANTED. See F&R (ECF 86), at 14. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this _13thgay of January, 2025.

Amy M. Bagg AMYM.BAGGIO United States District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER