Ayers v. Lane County Jail, No. 6:2017cv00766 - Document 82 (D. Or. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation and I ADOPT Judge Jelderks's F&R 67 . I GRANT Defendant Canizales' Motion for Summary Judgment 36 , dismiss all claims against Defendant Canizales without prejudice, and DENY Plaintiffs Motion to Deny Dismissal for Non-Judicial Remedies 40 . Signed on 1/16/2019 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (jtj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ayers v. Lane County Jail Doc. 82 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION JOSHUA J. AYERS, No. 6:17-cv-00766-JE Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER V. LANE COUNTY JAIL, LANE COUNTY SHERIFF, OFFICER GONZALES, JOHN DOE OFFICERS, JANE DOE OFFICERS, JANE DOE NURSES, JOHN DOE DOCTORS, Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On November 29, 2018, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [67], recommending that Defendant Canizales' Motion for Summary Judgment [36] should be GRANTED, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Canizales should be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of exhaustion, and Plaintiff's Motion to Deny Dismissal for Non-Judicial Remedies [40] should be DENIED. No objections were filed. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The comi is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com but retains responsibility for maldng 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)(l)(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)(l)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation and I ADOPT Judge Jelderks's F&R [67]. I GRANT Defendant Canizales' Motion for Summary Judgment [36], dismiss all claims against Defendant Canizales without prejudice, and DENY Plaintiffs Motion to Deny Dismissal for Non-Judicial Remedies [40]. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ___i_ day of January, 2019. MICHAEL W. MO~M~ Chief United States Distri:et 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.
