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
JASON BOMPANE, No. 3:22-cv-00357-AR
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
SHARON BROWN, NANCY
RONAN, and WELLPATH LLC,
Defendants.
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Armistead issued a Findings and Recommendation on January 5, 2023,
in which he recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss. F&R, ECF 20. 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 Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation [20].
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [12] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may submit an amended complaint within 30
days of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: ___F__e_b_r_u_a_ry_ _2_4_,_ 2_0__2_3_______.
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge