John Fial v. Nancy Cozine, in her official capacity as State Court...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JOHN FIAL, Case No. 3:25-cv-01498-JR Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. NANCY COZINE, in her official capacity as State Court Administrator of Oregon; DAN RAYFIELD, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Oregon; and KATE COOPER RICHARDSON,1 in her official capacity as Division Administrator of the Division of Child Support, Oregon Department of Justice, Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On December 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 40. The F&R recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ “Dawn Marquardt was named as Acting Director of the Division of Child Support beginning October 20, 2025, and therefore is automatically substituted as a party for her predecessor, who was sued only in her official capacity.” Defendants’ Motion Dismiss, ECF 24 at 1 n.1 (citation modified).

Motion to Dismiss, ECF 24, without leave to amend and that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the F&R, ECF 43, on December 19, 2025. Defendants filed a response, ECF 44. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the F&R to which Plaintiff objected and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s F&R in full.

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(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.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (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, 474 U.S. at 154. This Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s objections as he is proceeding pro se. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).

This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Russo’s F&R to which Plaintiff objected. Judge Russo’s F&R, ECF 40, is adopted in full. This Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 24. This Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF 1, without leave to amend. This Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, ECF 26.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2026.

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