UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KELSEY-BREEANN BOLDMAN, Case No. 6:25-cv-00603-AP

Plaintiff, ORDER v. AUMSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER ROBELLO; CHIEF FLOWERS; SERGEANT BIRD; BRENDA CAMPBELL, Clerk of Court; TURNER POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER NIX; MARION COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SERGEANT CRANDALL; and DEPUTY REJAIAN, Defendants.

KASUBHAI, United States District Judge: This matter is before the Court pursuant to

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Potter issued a Findings and Recommendation on November 12, 2025, in which she recommends that this Court dismiss counts 2, 4, and 5 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with leave to amend except as to claims under count 4 against Defendants Aumsville Police Department and Marion County Sheriff’s Office, which she recommends be dismissed with prejudice. F&R, ECF No. 13. When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

(b)(1). The district court has no obligation to review the portions of the magistrate judge’s report to which no party has objected. United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). However, the district court is not precluded from sua sponte review of other portions of the Findings and Recommendation, Thomas v. Arn,

(1985), and the Advisory Committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) recommend that the court should review such portions for “clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Here, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. ECF Nos. 15, 17. The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections and reviewed the relevant portions of the record de novo and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court likewise finds no clear error with the remainder of the Findings and Recommendation to which no objections were filed. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Potter’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF No.

13 and the following claims are DISMISSED: 1. Count 2 (failure to intervene) as to all Defendants 2. Count 4 (municipal liability) as to all Defendants 3. Count 5 (retaliation) as to Defendant Rebello Count 4 as to the Aumsville Police Department and Marion County Sheriff’s Office is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has leave to amend her Complaint with respect to the other dismissed Counts within 30 days of this order. The Court also reminds Plaintiff that, should she elect to file an amended complaint, she must reallege each of her claims, including the specific facts underlying each claim, and “may not incorporate any part of [her] prior pleading[s] by reference.” LR 15-1(a)(a). If Plaintiff does not amend, this case will proceed on Counts 1 and 3 as to all Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 8th day of December 2025.

s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him) United States District Judge