People of the Republic of Oregon et al v. Doe et al

Filing 58

OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 50 . The State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 12 is granted. Plaintiffs' §1983 claims against Oregon Secretary of State Jeanne Atkins and Orego n Governor Kate Brown are Dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiffs' state law claims against Secretary Atkins and Governor Brown are Dismissed with prejudice. All claims brought on behalf of Crystal Baldwin or the People of the Republic of Oregon are Dismissed with leave to refile if and when those parties retain the assistance of competent counsel. To the extent that Plaintiffs' Motion for Protection Order 17 constitutes a motion for a preliminary injunction, it is Den ied. Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment 43 is denied and Plaintiffs' "First Criminal Complaint on Information" 17 and "Original Title 18 Criminal Complaint" 18 are Dismissed. Plaintiffs are advised that if they wish to file a civil action against a party not named in the Complaint, they should either seek leave to file an amended complaint in the present case or file a new case. Signed on 2/9/17 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)

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

PEOPLE OF THE REPUBLIC OF
OREGON, et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-00109-PK
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
BARBIE DOE, et al.,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On October 31, 2016, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [50], recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [12] should
be GRANTED, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order [17] should be DENIED, and Plaintiffs’
Motion for Judgment [43] should be DENIED. Judge Papak also recommended that Plaintiffs’
“First Criminal Complaint on Information” [17-1] and “Original Title 18 Criminal Complaint”
[18-1] should be DISMISSED. Plaintiffs’ filed their Objections to the F&R [56] on December 6,
2016.
DISCUSSION
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,
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 I 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).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [50] as
my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

9th

day of February, 2017.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman_________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER