Timothy McCarter v. State of Oregon by and through the Oregon Department of Corrections, Dr. Leland Beamer, and John and Jane Does I-III

D. Oregon

Timothy McCarter v. State of Oregon by and through the Oregon Department of Corrections, Dr. Leland Beamer, and John and Jane Does I-III

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided June 5, 2026·No. 3:24-cv-00900·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

TIMOTHY MCCARTER, Case No. 3:24-cv-00900-CL Plaintiff, ORDER v. STATE OF OREGON by and through the Oregon Department of Corrections, DR. LELAND BEAMER, and JOHN and JANE DOES I-III. Defendants. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke has filed a Findings and Recommendation

(“F&R”) recommending that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36, be GRANTED. ECF No. 40. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, 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). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court shall make a de novo

Page 1 – ORDER determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to

which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The

Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.” In this case, no party has filed objections and the time for doing so has passed. The Court has reviewed the F&R and finds no clear error. The F&R, ECF NO. 40, is therefore ADOPTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36 is GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this __5_t_h____ day of June 2026.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge Page 2 – ORDER

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

PORTLAND DIVISION

TIMOTHY MCCARTER, Case No. 3:24-cv-00900-CL Plaintiff, ORDER v. STATE OF OREGON by and through the Oregon Department of Corrections, DR. LELAND BEAMER, and JOHN and JANE DOES I-III. Defendants. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke has filed a Findings and Recommendation

(“F&R”) recommending that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36, be GRANTED. ECF No. 40. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, 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). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court shall make a de novo

Page 1 – ORDER determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to

which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The

Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.” In this case, no party has filed objections and the time for doing so has passed. The Court has reviewed the F&R and finds no clear error. The F&R, ECF NO. 40, is therefore ADOPTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36 is GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this __5_t_h____ day of June 2026.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge Page 2 – ORDER

Timothy McCarter v. State of Oregon by and through the Oregon Department of Corrections, Dr. Leland Beamer, and John and Jane Does I-III, (D. Or. 2026).

Pincite

Timothy McCarter v. State of Oregon by and through the Oregon Department of Corrections, Dr. Leland Beamer, and John and Jane Does I-III (Timothy McCarter v. State of Oregon by and through the Oregon Department of Corrections, Dr. Leland Beamer, and John and Jane Does I-III) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related