Myles Nees v. Joseph Bugher; Christopher P. DiGiulio, M.D.; Warren Roberts, MD, FAANS; Loretta Irving, RN; Thomas L. Bristol, MD; Dr. Zoltan Teglassy, MD; Brady Whetten, DPT; Dr. Maurice Collada; RN Lynch; C. Gwynn; Joshua Highberger; Garett Laney; Jeremy Nofziger; and John & Jane Does 1-20

• Court: District Court, D. Oregon
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 6:22-cv-01354
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MYLES NEES, Case No.: 6:22-cv-01354-AR

Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOSEPH BUGHER; CHRISTOPHER P. DIGIULIO, M.D.; WARREN ROBERTS, MD, FAANS; LORETTA IRVING, RN; THOMAS L. BRISTOL, MD; DR. ZOLTAN TEGLASSY, MD; BRADY WHETTEN, DPT; DR. MAURICE COLLADA; RN LYNCH; C. GWYNN; JOSHUA HIGHBERGER; GARETT LANEY; JEREMY NOFZIGER; and JOHN & JANE DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

Adrienne Nelson, District Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued a Findings and Recommendation in this case, ECF [94], on October 20, 2025. In the Findings and Recommendation, Judge Armistead recommends that this Court grant defendant Brady Whetten's motion for summary judgment, ECF [45]; grant defendant Dr. Maurice Collada's motion for summary judgment, ECF [71]; grant in part and deny in part the State Defendants'1 motion for summary judgment, ECF [73]; and deny the self-represented plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, ECF [67], [68], [69]. Objections were due on September 2, 2025. No party has filed objections.2 The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1 The "State Defendants" include defendants Dr. Thomas L. Bristol; Joseph Bugher; Dr. Christopher P. DiGiulio; C. Gwynn; Joshua Highberger; Loretta Irving, RN; Garett Laney; RN Lynch; Jeremy Nofziger; Dr. Warren Roberts,; and Dr. Zoltan Teglassy. See State Defs. Resp. to Pl. Mots. for Summ. J. & Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., ECF [73], at 2.

2 Plaintiff, who is self-represented, filed his most recent notice of address change on February 10, 2025. See ECF [91]. Judge Armistead's Findings and Recommendation was issued and mailed to plaintiff at that address on August 19, 2025, see ECF [94], and was returned as undeliverable on September 4, 2025, see ECF [96]. This Court subsequently directed plaintiff to file a notice of address change by January 9, 2026. See Order of December 29, 2025, ECF [97]. That Order was also returned as undeliverable. See ECF [98]. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-10, plaintiff is obligated to notify the Clerk's Office of any changes to his mailing address, telephone number, or email address. Failure to do so is not a basis for this Court to further extend the time to file objections. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). A district court judge 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). No standard of review is prescribed for portions of the report for which no objections are filed, and no review is required in the absence of objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge is not, however, precluded from reviewing the report sua sponte under a de novo, or any other, standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154; Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017). Courts in this district have followed the Advisory Committee's recommendation that, when no timely objection is filed, findings and recommendations be reviewed for "clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment; see, e.g., Hayden v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1125, 1127 (D. Or. 2015) (following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviewing magistrate judge's findings and recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record"); Toohey v. Wyndham Worldwide-Corp. Health & Welfare Plan, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1224 (D. Or. 2009) (adopting unobjected to findings and recommendations under clear error standard). Because no party in this case has made objections, this Court reviews Judge Armistead's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ADOPTS Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF [94]. Defendant Brady Whetten's motion for summary judgment, ECF [45], is GRANTED. Defendant Dr. Maurice Collada's motion for summary judgment, ECF [71], is GRANTED. The State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF [73], is GRANTED as to Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, but DENIED as to Claim 3. Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, ECF [67], [68], [69], are DENIED. As a result, summary judgment is granted to defendants as to Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Only Claim 3, as asserted against defendants Jeremy Nofziger, Joshua Highberger, Garett Laney, and C. Gwynn, remains.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 14th day of January, 2026. Jy Y / l, J OK Adrienne Nelson United States District Judge