Hollinquest v. Suh

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DASA Y L. HOLLINQUEST, No.: 2:18-cv-01840-AC Plaintiff, ORDER v. S. SUH, Chaplain; B. CAIN, Superintendent; S. TOTH, Chaplain; S. YOUNG, Assistant Administrator Religious Services; DENNIS HOLMES, Administrator Religious Services; and S. MECHAM, Executive Assistant, Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [ECF 32] on March 23, 2020, in which he recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 22]. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation [ECF 32].

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 22] is granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______A__p_ri_l _8_, _2_0_2_0__________.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge