Murphy v. Welhelm

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JAMES MICHAEL MURPHY, M.D., No. 3:19-cv-01733-AC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

THOMAS J. WILHELM, M.D.; and HOOD RIVER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation on December 12, 2020, in which he recommends that this Court grant Defendant Wilhelm’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. F&R, ECF No. 67. 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 & Recommendation. Pl. Obj., ECF No. 69. 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 ECF No. 67. Therefore, Defendant Wilhelm’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___A__p_r_il _7_,_ 2_0_2__1_________.

___________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge