Hensley v. Oregon Department of Justice

IN TUHNEI TSETDA TES DICSOTURRITC T FORT HED ISTROIFCO TR EGON PORTLADNIDV ISION LEANNJE.H ENSLEY, Plaintiff, v. No3.: 20-cv-00859- OREGODNE PARTMENJTU SOTFI CE OPINIAONNDO RDER Defendant.

MOSMAN,J., OnS epte2m12b,e0 r2M 0a,g isJturdaJgtoeelA i.Re u sissos hueeFrdi ndainndg s Recommen(dF&a. Rt .i[)oE nC2 F2 J]u.d Rgues rseoc ommtehnIadd tei ds mPilsasi ntiffs AmendCeodm pl[aEiC2nF1tw ] i thporuetj uUdpiorcnee v.iI ae gwr,we ietJ hu dRgues asnod DISMItShcSia sws iet hporuetj udice.

DISCUSSION Thmea gisjturdmagateke oe nslr ye commentdota hcteoi uotrnowts h, i acnhpy a rmtayy fiwlrei totbejne cTthiceoo nmisins. o bto ubnytd h ree commenodfta hmteai goinssjt urdagtee, burte traeisnpso nfosrim baiklitinhfitgeny ad le termiTnhcaeot uiirogstne .n erreaqlultiyor ed makaed e ndoevtoe rmriengaatrtidhoionpns oger toifto hnrese poorsr pte cfiifnideoidrn gs recommeanstd aowth iiaocnonh b jeicmstai do2en8U. . S§.6 C3.6 (b)H(olw)e(vCe)cr.o, m it he inso rte qutiorre evdid eenw o,vo oru ndaenroy t hsetra ntdhafaerc dt,ou ral le gcaoln cloufs ions the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F. & R. to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F. & R. depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo’s findings and recommendation, and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 22] as my own opinion. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Ms. Hensley has until March 1, 2021, to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this Le of February, 2021. ) MICHAEL W. MOBMAN United States Distfict Judge — OPINION AND ORDER