Rivero v. Child Support of Medford, OR et al

Filing 12

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 9 . Signed on 7/8/2024 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 7/8/2024.) (ck)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION GILBERT ANTHONY RIVERO, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:23-cv-00860-CL ORDER CHILD SUPPORT OF MEDFORD, OR; D.A. MATHEW MCCAULEY, Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge John Clarke. ECF No. 9. Judge Clarke recommends that this case be dismissed with prejudice based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and statute of limitations deficiencies. Id. 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. Page 1 – ORDER See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, 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 has filed objections. ECF No. 11. The Court has reviewed the F&R, the record, and the objections, and finds no error. The F&R is therefore ADOPTED and this case is DISMISSED. However, because dismissal is based on lack of jurisdiction, dismissal shall be without prejudice but without leave to refile in the District of Oregon. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _____ 8th day of July 2024. /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?