IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ©

PEDRO SEGURA, SR., No. 6:21-cv-0740-YY Plaintiff, ORDER v. SGT. CHERNO, DEPUTY SANNE, DEPUTY HART, DEPUTY LILLY, DEPUTY AUSTIN, and MARION COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Defendants.

HERNANDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation on May 25, 2022, in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. F&R, ECF 59. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b),

1-ORDER

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, PI. Obj., ECF 61. 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 You’s Findings and Recommendation [59]. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [42] is GRANTED and this case is □ dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 22,2022 ,

_ AMpoeo 4omairdt, MARCO A. HERNANDEZ : United States District Judge

2 ~ ORDER