Marvin Randall v. State of Oregon et al.

D. Oregon

Marvin Randall v. State of Oregon et al.

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided December 10, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02171·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARVIN RANDALL, Case No. 2:24-cv-02171-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v.

STATE OF OREGON et al.,

Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On November 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 86. The F&R recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF 10, and motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF 40. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the F&R, ECF 89, on November 21, 2025, and filed a supplemental objection, ECF 91, on November 24, 2025. Defendants did not file a response to those objections. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the F&R to which Plaintiff objected and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’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 to which no

objections are addressed. 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 liberally construes Plaintiff’s objections as he is proceeding pro se. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Beckerman’s F&R to which Plaintiff objected. Judge Beckerman’s F&R, ECF 86, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Randall’s motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF 10, and motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF 40.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of December, 2025.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARVIN RANDALL, Case No. 2:24-cv-02171-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v.

STATE OF OREGON et al.,

Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On November 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 86. The F&R recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF 10, and motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF 40. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the F&R, ECF 89, on November 21, 2025, and filed a supplemental objection, ECF 91, on November 24, 2025. Defendants did not file a response to those objections. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the F&R to which Plaintiff objected and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’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 to which no

objections are addressed. 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 liberally construes Plaintiff’s objections as he is proceeding pro se. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Beckerman’s F&R to which Plaintiff objected. Judge Beckerman’s F&R, ECF 86, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Randall’s motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF 10, and motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF 40.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of December, 2025.

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

Marvin Randall v. State of Oregon et al., (D. Or. 2025).

Pincite

Marvin Randall v. State of Oregon et al. (Marvin Randall v. State of Oregon et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related