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
ADAM LYON, No. 6:20-cv-1883-JR
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
OREGON STATE HOSPITAL, a state
agency; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES, a state agency;
OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY, a state
agency; PATRICK ALLEN, director of
Oregon Health Authority; KRISTINE
KAUTZ, Deputy Director of Oregon Health
Authority; MIKE MORRIS, Behavioral
Health Director, Oregon State Hospital;
DELORES ‘DOLLY’ MATTEUCCI,
Superintendent, Oregon State Hospital;
DEREK WEHR, Deputy Superintendent,
Oregon State Hospital; CARMEN
CONTRERAS, MHTT, Oregon State
Hospital; STEPHEN BISHOP, MHTT-
Security, Oregon State Hospital; MICHAEL
MURR, RN, Nurse Manager, Oregon State
Hospital; BRYNN BROWN, MHTT,
Oregon State Hospital, EUGENE DOE,
LPN, Oregon State Hospital; JOHN AND
JANE DOE(S), each sued in their individual
and official capacities,
Defendants.
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on January 25, 2023, in
which she recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and
Attorney Fees. F&R, ECF 83. 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 concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to damages for emotional injury.
Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to the attorney fees requested in the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [83].
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and Attorney Fees Against Defendant
Contreras [79] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: _____M_a_r_c_h_ _6_, _2_0_2_3__________.
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge