Pruitt et al v. The Santiam Correctional Institution et al, No. 6:2018cv01119 - Document 26 (D. Or. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER - Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the Findings & Recommendation 24 in full. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 11 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF #2) is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 16th day of July, 2019, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman.(Mailed to Pro Se party on 7/17/19.) (peg)

Download PDF
Pruitt et al v. The Santiam Correctional Institution et al Doc. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION KENYO PRUITT, No. 6:18-cv-01119-AC Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. THE SANTIAM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; STATE OF OREGON; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; COLLETTE S. PETERS, in her official/individual capacity as Director of Oregon Department of C01Tections; MRS. HENDRIX, in her individual/official capacity as Superintendent of Santiam Correctional Institution; C/O LIEUTENANTS STIFLE and LT. DOES 1-30, in their individual/ official capacity as Lieutenant Correctional Officers of SCI, and C/O DOES NO. 1-30, Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On May 29, 2019, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [24], recommending that I GRANT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ 11]. Neither party objected. 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com DISCUSSION 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 comi is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the repoti or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the comi 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 paii of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation a11d I ADOPT the F&R [24] in full. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [11] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Complaint [2] is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this(/4_ day of July, 2019. 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.