Opinion

Lovell v. Columbia County Jail

Court
District Court, D. Oregon
Filed
Feb 12, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.7%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DON D. LOVELL, No. 6:20-cv-00804-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

SAMANTHA BISHOP and

SHARON BROWN,

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation on January 6, 2023,

in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

F&R, ECF 82. 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 timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

Pl. Obj., ECF 84.1 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 and Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent

portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation [82].

Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [66] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___F_e__b_ru_a__ry_ _1_2_,_ 2_0_2_3_____.

___________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

1 Plaintiff’s filing was postmarked January 20, 2023, the date objections were due, and received

on January 23, 2023, the next business day. ECF 84. Plaintiff received Judge Beckerman’s

Findings and Recommendation by mail. The Court treats Plaintiff’s submission as timely filed.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), 6(d); Flagg v. Lynch, No. CV16000118GFBMMJTJ, 2017 WL

4769116, at *1 n.1 (D. Mont. Sept. 20, 2017) (granting plaintiff three days beyond the statutory

14-day period to respond where F&R was served by mail).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.