IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TIMOTHY C. ROTE, No. 3:24-cv-01711-SB

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER

v.

NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, MAX ZWEIZIG, CHASE BEGUIN, CAUBLE AND WHITTINGTON, LLP, JANE DOE, 1, and JOHN DOES 1-5,

Defendants.

BAGGIO, District Judge: On June 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”, ECF 73), recommending that this Court grant Defendant New Jersey Judiciary’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 25), grant Defendants Chase Beguin and Cauble and Whittington, LLP’s (“Oregon Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF 29), grant Defendant Max Zweizig’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims (ECF 30), deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (ECF 36), grant Defendant Gloucester County’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 49), deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend federal claims (ECF 63), dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against the Oregon Defendants and Defendant Zweizig for wrongful initiation of a civil proceeding, and dismiss Plaintiff’s state claim against the Oregon Defendants and Defendant Zweizig without prejudice. On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed Objections (ECF 75). And on July 15, 2025, Defendants

Gloucester County, New Jersey Judiciary, and State of New Jersey filed Responses to Plaintiff’s Objections. (ECF 76 & 77). This Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s F&R in full. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections.

(b)(1)(B), (C). If a party objects, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.”

§ 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Ramos,

(9th Cir. 2023). While the level of scrutiny that the court applies to its F&R review depends on whether a

party has filed objections, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R.

(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas,

. Moreover, “[o]bjections to a magistrate judge’s F&R ‘are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.’” Wilhite v. Expensify, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR,

, at *1 (D. Or. Mar. 24, 2025) (quoting Chith v. Haynes, No. C18-5342 BHS,

, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021)). Plaintiff’s Objections largely relitigate the same arguments already considered and rejected by Judge Beckerman. However, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments and concludes that there is no basis to modify Judge Beckerman’s thorough F&R. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s F&R. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation [73] in full. Accordingly, Defendant New Jersey Judiciary’s Motion to Dismiss [25] is GRANTED, Oregon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [29] is GRANTED, Defendant Zweizig’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims [30] is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default [36] is DENIED, Defendant Gloucester County’s Motion to Dismiss [49] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend [63] is DENIED. Plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims against the Oregon Defendants and Defendant Zweizig for wrongful initiation of a civil proceeding. Lastly, Plaintiffs state claim against the Oregon Defendants and Defendant Zweizig is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this _gth_ day of August 2025.

OG Ge AMY M. BAGGIO United States District Judge

3 — OPINION AND ORDER