Patterson v. Henry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

STEVEN PATTERSON, No. 3:23-cv-00961-SB Plaintiff, ORDER v. PATRICK HENRY, KEVIN TILLSMAN, SUSAN SNELL, and JOHN O’BRIEN, Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation on September 20, 2023, in which she recommends that the Court grant Defendant Patrick Henry’s Motion to Dismiss. F&R, ECF 19. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (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 Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation [19].

Accordingly, Defendant Patrick Henry’s Motion to Dismiss [11] is GRANTED. Because leave to amend the Complaint would be futile, the Court declines to grant leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___O__c_t_o_b_e_r_ 2_4_,_ 2__0_2_3________.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge