Ashbaugh v. Yamhill County District Attorney's Office ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION BRIAN CODY ASHBAUGH, No. 3:17-cv-01038-JR Plaintiff, ORDER v. YAMHILL COUNTY, BRAD BERRY, District Attorney of Yamhill County in his official capacity; the YAMHILL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, as an office of Yamhill County; TIM SVENSON, Sheriff of Yamhill County in his official capacity; and the YAMHILL COUNTY JAIL, by and through the YAMHILL COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, an office of Yamhill County, Defendants. Matthew N. Miller Lindsay Hart, LLP 1300 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 Portland, OR 97201 Attorney for Plaintiff Heather J. Van Meter Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Attorney for Defendants Yamhill County District Attorney’s Office and Brad Berry Gerald L. Warren Aaron Hisel Law Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates 901 Capitol Street NE Salem, OR 97301 Attorneys for Defendants Yamhill County, Yamhill County Jail, Yamhill County Sheriff’s office, and Tim Svenson HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on August 13, 2019, in which she recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; grant in part Defendants Yamhill County, Yamhill County Jail, Yamhill County Sheriff’s office, and Tim Svenson’s (“County Defendants”) motion for summary judgment; and grant Yamhill County District Attorney’s Office and Brad Berry’s (“DAO Defendants”) motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff and County Defendants timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). DISCUSSION When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). /// Plaintiff objects to the Findings and Recommendation and argues that (1) Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, (2) the Magistrate Judge erred in granting summary judgment to County Defendants on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim, and (3) the Magistrate Judge erred by failing to draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor when she analyzed the DAO Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Pl. Obj. to F&R, ECF 106. County Defendants object to the Findings and Recommendation and argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying their cross-motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. County Defendants’ Obj. to F&R, ECF 105. The Court has carefully considered the parties’ objections and concludes that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [100]. The Court GRANTS DAO Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [85] and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment [88]. County Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment [90] is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants Svenson and Yamhill County Jail are DISMISSED, and Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against Yamhill County is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s and County Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim are DENIED. /// /// /// IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: ___D_e__c_e_m_b_e__r _1_2_,_ 2_0_1_9_. MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge