following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviewing magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record”
How later courts described this case
- following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviewing magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JALISA MCGOWAN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01522-JR
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CLACKAMAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE;
YVONNE SMITH, in her individual and official
capacities; JILL BROWN, in her individual and
official capacities; DAWN HENDRICKS, in her
individual and official capacities; and KATTIE
RIGGS, in her individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
Adrienne Nelson, District Judge:
United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued a findings and recommendation (“F&R”) in
this case on December 16, 2025. Judge Russo recommended that this Court grant defendants’ motion to
dismiss with leave to amend within thirty days. Plaintiff timely filed objections, to which defendants timely
responded in opposition. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the F&R in full.
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend within thirty days of the
date of this Order.
A district court judge 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). No standard of review is
prescribed for portions for the report for which no objections are filed, and no review is required in the
absence of objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 382
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge is not, however, precluded from reviewing the
report sua sponte under a de novo, or any other, standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154; Decker v. Berryhill,
856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017). Courts in this District have followed the Advisory Committee’s
recommendation that, when no timely objection is filed, findings and recommendations be reviewed for
“clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment;
see, e.g., Hayden v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1125, 1127 (D. Or. 2015) (following the recommendation
of the Advisory Committee and reviewing magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations for “clear
error on the face of the record”).
Plaintiff is a Black student at Clackamas Community College (“CCC”). Compl., ECF 2, ¶¶ 4, 50.
In May 2025, plaintiff sought to enroll in “HS-170,” a class required to obtain her degree. Id. ¶ 11. Her
request was initially denied. Id. When plaintiff presented documentation showing that she in fact met the
prerequisites for HS-170, she was permitted to register—which she proceeded to do. Id. ¶ 15 & Ex. C.
Plaintiff later learned that, although she had initially been denied permission to register for failure to meet
the course’s prerequisites (despite in fact meeting those perquisites), another student of a different race was
initially granted permission to register despite not meeting the prerequisites for the course. Id. ¶¶ 20, 49.
In July 2025, plaintiff submitted a public records request to CCC related to the incident. Id. ¶¶ 22-23 &
Ex. H. In response, CCC issued a fee estimate of $1,913.23 to plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff sought a waiver of
the fees, which CCC denied. Id. ¶ 23. The Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office subsequently
upheld CCC’s denial of the request for waiver. Id. On these facts, plaintiff brought the present action,
asserting ten total claims: six against CCC, two for race discrimination under Title VI, and one each for
state retaliation under Oregon Revised Statutes § 659.852, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied
contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and four claims against the individually named
defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of plaintiff’s due process rights and right to equal
protection, race discrimination, and first amendment retaliation. Id. ¶¶ 28-75.
On November 4, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF 19.
The parties fully briefed the motion, see ECF 21 (plaintiff’s response), ECF 22 (defendants’ reply). On
December 16, 2025, Judge Russo issued the now-pending F&R, ECF 25, which recommends that this Court
grant defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff timely
filed objections, arguing that the F&R erred in its findings as to (1) standing, (2) comparator sufficiency,
(3) qualified immunity, (4) retaliation, and (5) futility of amendment. Pls. Objs., ECF 27. Defendants
timely responded in opposition. Defs. Resp., ECF 28.
Upon de novo review, and having carefully considered plaintiff’s objections, this Court finds that
there is no basis to modify the F&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the F&R, ECF 25, in full; and
thereby GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 19, and DISMISSES plaintiffs complaint with leave
to amend. Any amended complaint is due within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of June, 2026.
Jy 0 VL 7 he Lion
Adrienne Nelson
United States District Judge