Todd v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al

Filing 27

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge You's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingl y, the Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 25 . Defendants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 22 ) is GRANTED. The Court further finds that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed on 7/6/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JUSTIN ALLEN TODD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-878-YY
ORDER

v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, COLETTE PETERS,
STEVE SHELTON, GARTH GULICK,
THOMAS BRISTOL, ROBERT WHITE,
D. DEWSNIP, and MICHAEL PEURINI,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on June 16, 2017. ECF 25. Judge You recommended that Defendants’ Amended
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 22) be granted and that judgment be entered in favor of
Defendants. No party has filed objections.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“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).
PAGE 1 – ORDER

If no party objects, 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, in enacting [the Act], intended
to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”);
United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the
court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but
not otherwise”).
Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
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 party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge You’s Findings
and Recommendation, ECF 25. Defendants’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 22)
is GRANTED. The Court further finds that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in
good faith and Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of July, 2017.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER