de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been made
How later courts described this case
- de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been made
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
RONALD MARTEZ BROWN, No. 3:18-cv-01260-SB
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
RICHARD IVES, TERRY UHRINAK,
and DANIEL CHILDRESS,
Defendants.
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation [44] on October 16,
2020, in which she recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim and terminate the appointment of Plaintiff’s pro bono counsel. 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).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation were
timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v.
Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal
principles de novo, the Court finds no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation [44].
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [32] is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED
with prejudice. Because dismissal of the case moots the need to serve Daniel Childress, the Court
TERMINATES the appointment of pro bono counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: ___N__o_v_e_m__b_e_r_ 2_0_,_ _2_0_2_0______.
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge