# Reyes v. Washburn

> District Court, D. Oregon · December 12, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10760404

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** December 12, 2024
- **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/10760404

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JUAN MANUEL REYES, Case No. 2:21-cv-01175-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING F&R

v.

SUSAN WASHBURN, Superintendent of
EOCI; ANDREA NEISTADT, Assistant
Superintendent of EOCI; L. LEGORE, Law
Library Supervisor of EOCI; C. BOLLES,
Law Library Coordinator; CAPT. J.
WALKER, Operations Capt.; CAPT. T.
STEWART, Institutional Capt.; P.
VILLERS, Law Library Coordinator of
EOCI; and MS. M. JOHNSON, Law Library
Coordinator of EOCI,

Defendants.

Juan Manuel Reyes, No. 21302533, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, 2500 Westgate,
Pendleton, OR 97801. Pro Se.

Molly K. Honore, Chad A. Naso, Jermaine Brown, Kerry J. Shepherd, R. Kyle Busse, Allison
Rothgeb, and April Stone, Markowitz Herbold PC, 1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900, Portland,
OR 97201. Attorneys for Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.
On November 15, 2024, Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 86. The F&R recommends that this Court grant in part and
deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint, ECF 80. No party
filed objections.

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)(C). 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 that are not
objected to. 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.

No party having filed objections, this Court has reviewed the F&R and accepts Judge
Beckerman’s conclusions. The F&R, ECF 86, is adopted in full. Accordingly, this Court
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended
Complaint, ECF 80.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 12th day of December, 2024.

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10760404. Public record. Not legal advice.