Ashbaugh v. Yamhill County District Attorney's Office et al

Filing 113

ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 100 . The Court Grants DAO Defendants' motion for summary judgment 85 and Denies Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment 88 . County Defendants' ; cross-motion for summary judgment 90 is Granted in Part. Defendants Svenson and Yamhill County Jail are Dismissed, and Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Yamhill County is Dismissed. Plaintiff's and County Defendants' motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim are Denied. Signed on 12/12/19 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)

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

BRIAN CODY ASHBAUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
YAMHILL COUNTY, BRAD BERRY,
District Attorney of Yamhill County in his
official capacity; the YAMHILL COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, as an
office of Yamhill County; TIM SVENSON,
Sheriff of Yamhill County in his official
capacity; and the YAMHILL COUNTY JAIL,
by and through the YAMHILL COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, an office of Yamhill
County,
Defendants.

Matthew N. Miller
Lindsay Hart, LLP
1300 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 3400
Portland, OR 97201
Attorney for Plaintiff

1 - ORDER

No. 3:17-cv-01038-JR
ORDER

Heather J. Van Meter
Oregon Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Attorney for Defendants Yamhill County District Attorney’s Office and Brad Berry
Gerald L. Warren
Aaron Hisel
Law Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates
901 Capitol Street NE
Salem, OR 97301
Attorneys for Defendants Yamhill County, Yamhill County Jail, Yamhill County
Sheriff’s office, and Tim Svenson

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on August 13, 2019, in
which she recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; grant in
part Defendants Yamhill County, Yamhill County Jail, Yamhill County Sheriff’s office, and Tim
Svenson’s (“County Defendants”) motion for summary judgment; and grant Yamhill County
District Attorney’s Office and Brad Berry’s (“DAO Defendants”) motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff and County Defendants timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b).
DISCUSSION
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
///
2 - ORDER

Plaintiff objects to the Findings and Recommendation and argues that (1) Plaintiff was
entitled to summary judgment on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, (2) the
Magistrate Judge erred in granting summary judgment to County Defendants on Plaintiff’s
Fourth Amendment claim, and (3) the Magistrate Judge erred by failing to draw all reasonable
inferences in Plaintiff’s favor when she analyzed the DAO Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Pl. Obj. to F&R, ECF 106. County Defendants object to the Findings and
Recommendation and argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying their cross-motion for
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. County
Defendants’ Obj. to F&R, ECF 105. The Court has carefully considered the parties’ objections
and concludes that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The
Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [100]. The
Court GRANTS DAO Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [85] and DENIES Plaintiff’s
motion for partial summary judgment [88]. County Defendants’ cross-motion for summary
judgment [90] is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants Svenson and Yamhill County Jail are
DISMISSED, and Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against Yamhill County is DISMISSED.
Plaintiff’s and County Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment claim are DENIED.
///
///
///

3 - ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 12, 2019
DATED: ____________________.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

4 - ORDER