IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

DAVID HODGES, No. 6:15-cv-00521-AC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; ANDREW GRASLEY, MD; CHERYL CALCAGNO, FNP; and TRANG TRAN, RN;

Defendants.

David Hodges SID # 19420120 Oregon States Penitentiary 2605 State Street Salem, OR 97310-1346

Pro Se Plaintiff

Kevin M. Coles Stewart Sokol & Larkin, LLC 2300 SW First Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97201-5047

Attorney for Defendants HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation on September 10, 2019, in which he recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report.

(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall,

(9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Plaintiff objects to the Findings and Recommendation because he believes he had a heart attack while in Defendants’ care, he should not have been refused Plavix, and he should have been transported to the emergency room or evaluated by a cardiologist following an episode of chest pain in 2012 and an episode of unconsciousness in 2013. Obj. to F&R, ECF 234. The

Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections and concludes that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. /// /// /// /// /// /// CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation [230]. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [65] is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED Ja nuary 2 , 2020 .

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge