Randall v. Reyes

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARVIN RANDALL, Case No. 2:23-cv-01826-SB

Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING JUDGE BECKERMAN’S FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATION ERIN REYES, Respondent. IMMERGUT, District Judge. No objections have been filed to Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 52. This Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s F&R and accordingly DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF 50. STANDARDS 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. CONCLUSION No objections were filed in response to Judge Beckerman’s F&R. Nonetheless, this Court has reviewed the F&R de novo. The F&R, ECF 52, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF 50.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2024.

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