Patrick Cashman v. United States General Services Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PATRICK CASHMAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-01359-AR Plaintiff, ORDER v. UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

BAGGIO, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued a Findings and Recommendation on September 9, 2025, in which he recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s operative complaint for failure to show Article III standing. F&R, ECF No. 41. 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 Recommendation.

Pl.’s Obj., ECF No. 43. 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. 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 adopts Judge Armistead’s F&R with one modification. Judge Armistead noted that “the real-property-disposal regulations relied on by Cashman provide that pre-decisional appraisals are kept confidential.” F&R 10 (citing 41 C.F.R. § 102—75.320). While the parties were filing their briefing with respect to Judge Armistead’s F&R, an intervening change in law occurred. The regulation which Judge Armistead cites was repealed by rule on December 16, 2025. See Federal Management Regulation; Aligning the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) With the Administration’s Deregulatory Priorities, 90 Fed. Reg. 58,480 (Dec. 16, 2025). Because Judge Armistead finds that Plaintiff fails to allege an injury-in-fact on other grounds, the Court does not find that this intervening change in law affects Judge Armistead’s conclusion.

The Court has also reviewed all other pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS IN PART Magistrate Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation [41]. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss [35] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2026.

Mimy Wh. Paggee □□□ uupacce United States District Judge — ORDER