IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARICELA RAMIREZ, No. 3:20-CV-152-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

JOSHUA KORNEGAY, MD; SARAH GOMEZ, MD; ADDRIENNE HUGHES, MD; LARA JESIC, FNP; MATTHEW NOBLE, MD; VERDA DEW, LCSW; SUSAN YODER, RN BSN; GREG MOAWAD; KARYN THRAPP, RN BSN; ERIC BROWN; OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTIC; STATE OF OREGON; DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on May 3, 2021, in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. F&R, ECF 101. 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 No. 104. 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 Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [101]. Therefore, the OHSU Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [37] and the State

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement [48] are GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____J_u_ly_ _1_3_, _2_0_2_1_________.

___________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge