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)

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