IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SHERRY H. DETWILER, Case No. 3:22-cv-01306-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND v. DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE MID-COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER, a Public Benefit Corporation, CHERI McCALL, an individual, and DOES I THROUGH 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Ray D. Hacke, Pacific Justice Institute, 317 Court St. NE, Suite 202, Salem, OR 97301. Attorney for Plaintiff.

Christopher E. Hawk and Diane R. Lenkowsky, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, 1300 SW 5th Ave Ste 2000, Portland, OR 97201. Attorneys for Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

This Court has reviewed de novo the portion of the F&R to which Plaintiff objected. For the following reasons, this Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s F&R. STANDARDS Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R that are not

objected to. See Thomas v. Arn,

, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas,

. CONCLUSION This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Russo’s F&R to which Plaintiff objected. Judge Russo’s F&R, ECF 38, is adopted in full. This Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 34, and DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint, ECF 33, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2023.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge