Forter et al v. Brown et al, No. 6:2021cv00478 - Document 187 (D. Or. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation. I ADOPT her F. & R. (ECF 185 ) as my own opinion, and I GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF 158 ). I dismiss Plaintiffs' Art icle I, Section 20 claim with prejudice and Plaintiffs' claim for class damages without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 11/17/2023 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se parties on 11/17/2023.) (gw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Forter et al v. Brown et al Doc. 187 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION JEFFREY D. FORTER, et al., Plaintiffs, No. 6:21-cv-00478-SB v. OPINION AND ORDER GOVERNOR KATE BROWN, et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On September 26, 2023, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F. & R.”) [ECF 185]. Judge Beckerman recommends that I grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF 158] and dismiss Plaintiffs’ Article I, Section 20 claim under the Oregon Constitution with prejudice and Plaintiffs’ claim for class damages without prejudice. Objections were due on October 10, 2023, but none were filed. I agree with Judge Beckerman. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation. I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF 185] as my own opinion, and I GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF 158]. I dismiss Plaintiffs’ Article I, Section 20 claim with prejudice and Plaintiffs’ claim for class damages without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ____ 17 day of November, 2023. ________________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Senior United States District Judge 2 – OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
