Justin Gottfried and Latia Noah v. ODHS, City of Eugene, Saint Vincent DePaul, Carly Davy, Aleisha Conway, Kimi Murayama, Daniel Delgado, Jenny Mitchell, Leasa Stephens, Bill Palmer, and Doe Defendants 1-25

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon adopts a magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation after determining that the plaintiffs’ objections were untimely and meritless. The court denies the plaintiffs’ motion for recusal and dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, concluding that further amendment would be futile.

Holdings

1. When no timely objections are filed, the district court reviews the magistrate judge's findings for clear error rather than conducting de novo review.
2. The plaintiffs' untimely objections did not establish error in the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, and the Findings and Recommendation was properly adopted.
3. The amended complaint failed to state a claim for relief, and further amendment was futile after multiple screening orders; the case was therefore dismissed with prejudice.
4. The plaintiffs' motion for recusal was denied.

Questions Presented

1. What standard of review applies when objections to a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation are untimely?
2. Whether the plaintiffs' untimely objections warranted rejection of the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation.
3. Whether the amended complaint failed to state a claim and further amendment would be futile.
4. Whether plaintiffs' motion for recusal should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed