Richardson v. Navient

Filing 9

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accor dingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 7 . Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF 5 ) is GRANTED. Defendant's alternative motion is denied as moot. Signed on 9/13/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ELIZABETH RICHARDSON,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:17-cv-0891-SU
ORDER

v.
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on August 22, 2017. ECF 7. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement. ECF 5. Judge Sullivan recommended
that Defendant’s motion to dismiss 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’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 Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sullivan’s
Findings and Recommendation, ECF 7. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 5) is GRANTED.
Defendant’s alternative motion is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of September, 2017.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER