Reyes v. Washburn

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JUAN MANUEL REYES, Case No. 2:21-cv-01175-SB

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING JUDGE BECKERMAN’S FINDINGS v. AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING SUSAN WASHBURN, Superintendent of IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION EOCI, ANDREA NEISTADT, Assistant TO DISMISS Superintendent of EOCI, L. LEGORE, Law Library Supervisor of EOCI, C. BOLLES, Law Library Coordinator, CAPT. J. WALKER, Operations Capt., CAPT. T. STEWART, Institutional Capt., P. VILLERS, Law Library Coordinator of E.O.C.I., and MS. M. JOHNSON, Law Library Coordinator of E.O.C.I.,

Defendants.

Juan Manuel Reyes, 21302533, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institute, 2500 Westgate, Pendleton, OR 97801. Pro Se.

Molly K. Honore, Chad A. Naso, Jermaine Brown, Kerry J. Shepherd, R. Kyle Busse, and April Stone, Markowitz Herbold PC, 1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900, Portland, OR 97201. Attorneys for Defendants. IMMERGUT, District Judge.

This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) to which Plaintiff objected. See ECF 70. Defendants did not object to the F&R. See ECF 74 at 7 (“Defendants do not object to the Findings and Recommendation.”). Following its review, this Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s F&R, ECF 63. 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 Judge Beckerman’s F&R, ECF 63, is adopted in full. This Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 50. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a Third Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of January, 2024.

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