Todd v. Skrah et al

Filing 45

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 39 ; Denying Motion to Reopen 36 . Signed on 5/11/2023 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 5/11/2023.) (ck)

Download PDF
Case 1:17-cv-00738-CL Document 45 Filed 05/11/23 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION JOHN H. TODD, Plaintiff, No. 1:17-cv-00738-CL v. ORDER FRANK SKRAH, et al., Defendant. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke. ECF No. 39. Judge Clarke recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Reopen Case, ECF No. 36, be denied. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, Page 1 – ORDER Case 1:17-cv-00738-CL Document 45 Filed 05/11/23 Page 2 of 2 in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.” In this case, Plaintiff filed Objections to the F&R, ECF No. 42, and Defendant has filed a Response, ECF No. 44. The Court has reviewed the F&R, the Objections, Response, and the record and finds no error. The F&R, ECF No. 39, is therefore ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Reopen Case, ECF No. 36, is DENIED. 11th day of May 2023. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _____ /s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge Page 2 – ORDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?