James Charles Fudge v. Christina Towers, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JAMES CHARLES FUDGE, Case No. 6:23-cv-00986-YY Plaintiff, ORDER v. CHRISTINA TOWERS, et al., Defendants.

BAGGIO, District Judge: Magistrate Judge You issued Findings and Recommendations on September 30, 2025, in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. F&R, ECF No. 88. 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).

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. Pl.’s Obj., ECF No. 93. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings and Recommendations. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You’s Findings and Recommendations [88].

Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [49] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 26th day of February, 2026.

Aimy Wl. Paggee United States District Judge — ORDER