# Wickizer v. Crim

> District Court, D. Oregon · February 23, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10394387

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** February 23, 2022
- **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/10394387

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LAURA WICKIZER, Case No. 3:18-cv-01816-AC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

DR. CATHERINE E. CRIM, Personally,
DR. S. SHELTON, Personally, D. BROWN,
Personally,

Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On February 2, 2022, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”). ECF 124. The F&R recommends that this Court grant Defendants’
motion for summary judgment, ECF 104, and dismiss this action with prejudice. No party filed
objections. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s F&R.
STANDARDS
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, 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 objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “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. But the court is not required to review, de
novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no
objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not

preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another
standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
CONCLUSION
No party having filed objections, this Court has reviewed the F&R and accepts Judge
Acosta’s conclusions. The F&R, ECF 124, is adopted in full. Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF 104, is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2022.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut
Karin J. Immergut
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10394387. Public record. Not legal advice.