Langley et al v. Jones et al

Filing 44

ORDER - Adopting Magistrate Judge Paul Papak's Findings and Recommendation 31 . Signed on 3/8/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
IVAN B. LANGLEY and
KARLEE E. LANGLEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 11-CV-774-PK

SHIRLEY E. JONES and
CHARLEE A. PHILLIPS, JR.,
ORDER
Defendants.
Ivan B. Langley
Karlee E. Langley
29135 Langley Road
Huntington, Oregon 97097
Pro se
Timothy O’Hanlon
Mautz & O’Hanlon
P.O. Box 628
Pendleton, Oregon 97801
Attorney for Defendants

SIMON, District Judge:
On January 10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak filed Findings and Recommendations
in this case (doc. # 31). Judge Papak recommended that Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed for lack

Order Page 1

of subject-matter jurisdiction, and that Plaintiffs be allowed 30 days to amend their complaint, if
appropriate. No objections have been filed. [Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint.]
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a
party files objections to a magistrate’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).
If, however, no objections are filed, the Magistrates Act does not prescribe any standard
of review. In such cases, “[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Magistrates
Act] intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report[.]” Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)
(en banc) (court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is
made, “but not otherwise”).
Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates Act “does
not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other
standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court
review the magistrate’s findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
No objections having been made, the court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Hubel’s findings and recommendations for clear error
on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation

Order Page 2

(docket # 31). Because Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint, this case is dismissed
with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 8th day of March, 2012.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

Order Page 3