Lee v. Taylor et al

Filing 84

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordi ngly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 82 . Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 78 ) is GRANTED. This case is dismissed. Signed on 7/2/2020 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 7/2/2020.) (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KENNETH LEE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:17-cv-0822-AC
ORDER

v.
JERRI TAYLOR; LANCE ALBERT; RON
MILES; DAVE LILIENTHAL; DWIGHT
HAWKINS and NINA SOBOTT,
Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on June 2, 2020. ECF 82. Judge Acosta recommended that Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted. 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 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).

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 judge’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 judge’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 Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s
Findings and Recommendation, ECF 82. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 78)
is GRANTED. This case is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 2nd day of July, 2020.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER