# Forter v. Brown

> District Court, D. Oregon · November 17, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10396709

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** November 17, 2023
- **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/10396709

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

JEFFREY D. FORTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, No. 6:21-cv-00478-SB
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
GOVERNOR KATE BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On September 26, 2023, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and

Recommendation (“F. & R.”) [ECF 185]. Judge Beckerman recommends that I grant
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF 158] and dismiss Plaintiffs’ Article I, Section 20 claim
under the Oregon Constitution with prejudice and Plaintiffs’ claim for class damages without
prejudice. Objections were due on October 10, 2023, but none were filed. I agree with Judge
Beckerman.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F. & R. to which no objections are addressed. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which J am required to review the F. & R.
depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject,
or modify any part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation. | ADOPT her F. & R.
[ECF 185] as my own opinion, and ] GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF 158]. I
dismiss Plaintiffs’ Article I, Section 20 claim with prejudice and Plaintiffs’ claim for class
damages without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17 day of November, 2023.

Wechash U/ Wleaman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Senior United States District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10396709. Public record. Not legal advice.