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. KEVIN TILLSON, SUSAN SNELL, and JOHN O’BRIEN, Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation on December 7, 2023, in which she recommends that the Court treat Defendant Kevin Tillson’s Motion to Dismiss as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and grant that motion. F&R, ECF 26. 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 [26].

Accordingly, Defendant Kevin Tillson’s Motion to Dismiss [21] is treated as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and is GRANTED. The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies Judge Beckerman identified.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______J_a_n_u__a_ry_ _8_,_ 2_0_2_4______.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge