IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UHURU’SEKOU KAMARA AJANI OBATAIYE-ALLAH, No. 2:19-cv-01579-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

CRAIG PRINS, COLLET PETERS, T. BOWSER, BLEWETT, L. ALBERT, MILLEGAN, STOCKTON, JEMMET, DE LA CRUZ, YOUNCS, KEMPAS, M. NOOTH, THURMOND, S. JOHNSTON, J. BUGHER, HEALTH SERVICES, and C. DiGUILIO,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on July 26, 2021, in which she recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. F&R, ECF 64. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt,

(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, the Court finds no error. CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [64]. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [24] is denied as to his claims against Defendants Peters, Prins, Bowser, Blewett, Youncs, Bugher, Johnston, Nooth, and DiGuilio and denied without prejudice as to Defendants MilLegan, Albert, Stockton, Thurmond, and Kempas. The Court grants Defendants Peters, Prins, Bowser, Blewett, Youncs, Bugher, Johnston, Nooth and DiGuilio’s Motion for Summary Judgment [58]. Plaintiff’s state law claims for assault, battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and

retaliation are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___S_e__p_te_m__b_e_r_ 9__, _2_0_2_1_______.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge