Robbins v. Port of Portland (PDX) TSA

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MICHAEL J. ROBBINS, No. 3:25-cv-00760-YY Plaintiff, ORDER v.

PORT OF PORTLAND (PDX) TSA, Defendant.

BAGGIO, District Judge: On June 16, 2026, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”, ECF 11) recommending that this matter be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff did not file an objection to the F&R.1 The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). If a party objects, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.” Id. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court is not, however, required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v.

1 Plaintiff is the only party in this matter because his pro se Complaint was dismissed without service but with leave to amend. See May 14, 2025, Order (ECF 5). Arn, 474 US. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). While the level of scrutiny that the court applies to its F&R review depends on whether a party has filed objections, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas, 474 USS. at 154. Upon review, the Court agrees with Judge You’s recommendation and ADOPTS the F&R (ECF 11) in full. This matter is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 11th day of July 2025.

Amey UM. Faggee AMY M. BAGGIO United States District Judge

2 — ORDER