There is a valuation for the atomic sentences, "P" is true, "Q" is true, and "R" is false, that makes the premise, "P OR Q", true, but the conclusion, "R → (P OR Q) AND R", false.
One should not be able to find a proof for this.
To help see why this is the case, consider the opposite direction of the implication to see what would happen when one can prove a result. Suppose we were trying to show "R → (P OR Q) AND R" implied "P OR Q". This would be modus ponens and one could prove it by using conditional elimination as follows:
A truth table would also show this:
Note that every valuation of the three atomic sentences in the first three columns where the Premise column is "T" or true, the Conclusion column is not "F" or not false. It does not matter what happens to the Conclusion column if the Premise column is "F" or false. The Argument column shows that for all valuations the result is "T" or true.
Now consider the other direction. Given only "P OR Q" as the premise, we are expected to derive something about "R" which has nothing to do with either "P" or "Q".
Consider the truth table for this:
There are three different valuations of the atomic sentences where the premise, "P ∨ Q", is true, but the conclusion "[R → (P ∨ Q)] ∧ R" is false. We only need one to claim that we should not be able to prove this result.
This could be viewed as a tautology if one interprets the sentence as
(P ∨ Q) → (R → ((P ∨ Q) ∧ R))
Here is the truth table:
Stanford Truth Table Tool http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs103/tools/truth-table-tool/
Wikipedia, "Modus ponens" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens