Kishna

Filing 12

ORDER: This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Armistead's F&R, ECF 9 , to which Plaintiff objected. This Court adopts Judge Armistead's F&R in full. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ECF 7 , is DISMISSED with prej udice, Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed IFP, ECF 1 , is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF 3 , is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 9th day of May, 2022, by United States District Judge Karin J. Immergut. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 5/9/2022.) (pjg)

Case 3:22-cv-00199-AR

Document 12

Filed 05/09/22

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ANITA I. KISHNA,

Case No. 3:22-cv-00199-AR

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
(NONE LISTED),
Defendant.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.
On March 30, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”). ECF 9. The F&R recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, ECF 7, with prejudice, grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), ECF 1, and deny Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF 3.
Plaintiff filed objections to the F&R. ECF 11.
STANDARDS
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). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de
PAGE 1 – ORDER

Case 3:22-cv-00199-AR

Document 12

Filed 05/09/22

Page 2 of 2

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 to which no
objections are addressed. 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.
CONCLUSION
This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Armistead’s F&R, ECF 9, to
which Plaintiff objected. This Court adopts Judge Armistead’s F&R in full. Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, ECF 7, is DISMISSED with prejudice, Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed
IFP, ECF 1, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF 3, is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 9th day of May, 2022.
/s/ Karin J. Immergut
Karin J. Immergut
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER