# Ramirez v. Kornegay

> District Court, D. Oregon · July 13, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393573

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** July 13, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393573

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARICELA RAMIREZ, No. 3:20-CV-152-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

JOSHUA KORNEGAY, MD; SARAH
GOMEZ, MD; ADDRIENNE HUGHES, MD;
LARA JESIC, FNP; MATTHEW NOBLE, MD;
VERDA DEW, LCSW; SUSAN YODER, RN
BSN; GREG MOAWAD; KARYN THRAPP,
RN BSN; ERIC BROWN; OREGON HEALTH
AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY; OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTIC; STATE OF
OREGON; DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on May 3, 2021, in
which she recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. F&R,
ECF 101. 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 & Recommendation.
Pl. Obj., ECF No. 104. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings
& 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 concludes that there is no
basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent
portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &
Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [101].
Therefore, the OHSU Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [37] and the State

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement [48] are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____J_u_ly_ _1_3_, _2_0_2_1_________.

___________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393573. Public record. Not legal advice.