IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WILLIAM JAMES ANDERSON, No. 2:19-cv-00211-SU (lead case) No. 2:18-cv-01932-SU (trailing case) Plaintiff, No. 2:18-cv-01971-SU (trailing case)

v. ORDER

UMATILLA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation on December 18, 2020, in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. F&R, ECF 41. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. Pl. Obj., ECF 43. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & 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). The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &

Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation [41]. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: __J_a_n__u_a_ry_ _3_1_,_ 2_0__2_1______.

____________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge