IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SHUA TILAHUN, Case No. 6:23-cv-00060-AR Plaintiff, ORDER v.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SGT. BERNHARDT, CORY FUREY, CHAPLAIN STOLLNECKER, CHAPLAIN THOMPSON, CHAPLAIN BOREAL, CHAPLAIN YOUNG, COLETTE PETERS, HEIDI STEWART, JAMIE BREMEN, MARK KNUTH, BRANDON KELLY, CINDY BOOTH, NATHALINE FRENER, R. POLK, KELLY CARLSON, DEPUTY TOOMBS,

Defendants.

BAGGIO, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Armistead issued a Findings and Recommendation on July 16, 2025, in which he recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. F&R, ECF No. 76. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. Pl.’s Obj., ECF No. 78. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 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 Plaintiffs objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation [76]. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [54] and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [70]. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 12th day of September, 2025. Amey We. Faggee AMY M. BAGGIO United States District Judge

2 —ORDER