Canales-Robles et al v. Peters et al

Filing 56

ORDER The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acostas Findings and Recommendation 54 . Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Amend 36 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is denied as to all claims against Defendant Humphreys and the fir st, second, third and fifth causes of action. The fourth cause of action as brought by the OYA class should also be amended to proceed only against Defendants OLeary and Berger. Plaintiff shall file hisamended complaint within 30 days of this Order (BY 11/1/18). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 1st day of October, 2018, by United States District Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (peg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

HECTOR FERNANDO CANALESROBLES,
Plaintiff,

No. 6:16-cv-01395-AC
ORDER

v.
COLETTE S. PETERS, former Director,
Oregon Youth Authority and current
Director, Oregon Department of
Corrections, et. al.,
Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [54] on July 2, 2018, in
which he recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
[36]. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(b).

1 - ORDER

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation were
timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v.
Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal
principles de novo, the Court finds no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation [54].
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [36] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The
motion is denied as to all claims against Defendant Humphreys and the first, second, third and
fifth causes of action. The fourth cause of action as brought by the OYA class should also be
amended to proceed only against Defendants O’Leary and Berger. Plaintiff shall file his
amended complaint within 30 days of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

day of ________________, 2018

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

2 - ORDER