Walker v. Salmonson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ROBERT LANCE WALKER, Case No. 3:25-cv-01214-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

SALMONSON, Interim Warden, FCI Sheridan

Defendant.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

No objections to Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 6, have been filed. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the F&R. 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 to which no objections are addressed. 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 6, is adopted in full. This Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 23rd day of September, 2025.

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