Reddye v. City of Astoria

D. Oregon

Reddye v. City of Astoria

DecidedApril 21, 2025

Docket3:22-cv-01569

StatusUnknown

This text of Reddye v. City of Astoria (Reddye v. City of Astoria) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reddye v. City of Astoria, (D. Or. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SAM REDDYE, Case No. 3:22-cv-01569-AR

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING F&R

v.

CITY OF ASTORIA; and OFFICER JASON ROBINSON,

Defendants.

Jina L. Clark, Clark Law and Associates, LLC, 6501 SW Macadam Ave. Suite E, Portland, OR 97239. Attorney for Plaintiff.

Andrew D. Campbell, Heltzel Williams, PC, P.O. Box 1048, Salem, OR 97308. Attorney for Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On March 31, 2025, Magistrate Judge Armistead issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 38. The F&R recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 23, and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. No party filed objections. 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. No party having filed objections, this Court has reviewed the F&R and accepts Judge Armistead’s conclusions. The F&R, ECF 38, is adopted in full. This Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 23, and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 21st day of April, 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

SAM REDDYE, Case No. 3:22-cv-01569-AR

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING F&R

v.

CITY OF ASTORIA; and OFFICER JASON ROBINSON,

Defendants.

Jina L. Clark, Clark Law and Associates, LLC, 6501 SW Macadam Ave. Suite E, Portland, OR 97239. Attorney for Plaintiff.

Andrew D. Campbell, Heltzel Williams, PC, P.O. Box 1048, Salem, OR 97308. Attorney for Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On March 31, 2025, Magistrate Judge Armistead issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 38. The F&R recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 23, and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. No party filed objections. 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. No party having filed objections, this Court has reviewed the F&R and accepts Judge Armistead’s conclusions. The F&R, ECF 38, is adopted in full. This Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 23, and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2025.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reddye v. City of Astoria, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reddye-v-city-of-astoria-ord-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack