Jessica Anne Marie Foust v. C/O Espinoza; Reyes, Superintendent of TRCI; C/O...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PENDLETON DIVISION

JESSICA ANNE MARIE FOUST, Civ. No. 2:24-cv-01247-AP Plaintiff, ORDER v. C/O ESPINOZA; REYES, superintendent of TRCI; C/O KETCHERSID, TRCI; JANE DOE x 1, medical nurse, all sued in their individual and official capacity, Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge: Before the Court is a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Amy E. Potter, ECF No. 30. Judge Potter recommends that self- represented Plaintiff’s two Motions for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, ECF Nos. 20, 23, be denied. For the reasons explained below, the Court ADOPTS Judge Potter’s F&R, ECF No. 30, in full. Plaintiff’s Motions, ECF Nos. 20, 23, are DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARDS Under the Federal Magistrates Act, 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). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “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.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review.

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 150. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.”

Here, Plaintiff filed Objections, ECF No. 34. The Court has reviewed the record, the F&R, and the Objections and finds no error. For that reason, the F&R, ECF No. 30, is ADOPTED in full.

CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, the Court ADOPTS Judge Potter’s F&R, ECF No. 30, in full. Plaintiff’s Motions, ECF Nos. 20, 23, are DENIED.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this __1_3__th____ day of April 2026.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge