Turner v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided May 6, 2025·No. 3:25-cv-00409·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ELIZABETH TURNER, No. 3:25-CV-00409-SB Plaintiff, ORDER v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant. BAGGIO, District Judge:

On April 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (ECF 8)1 recommending that the Court dismiss pro se plaintiff Elizabeth Turner’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (ECF 2) without prejudice and with leave to amend. Plaintiff did not file objections to the F&R.2 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,

1 Judge Beckerman granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 2 Plaintiff filed a letter to the Court along with exhibits after Judge Beckerman filed her F&R. The Court, however, does not consider either in its review of the F&R. 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. 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 Beckerman’s recommendation and ADOPTS the F&R (ECF 8) in full. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed within fourteen days of the date that this Order is filed. Failure to file an amended complaint in the time allowed may result in dismissal of this matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or to follow the Court’s orders. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 6th day of May 2025.

Aig UM. 7 agg AMYM. BAGGI United States District Judge

2 — ORDER

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Turner v. State of Oregon, (D. Or. 2025).

Turner v. State of Oregon (Turner v. State of Oregon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Demetrius Ramos
65 F.4th 427 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)