Teater v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

Filing 127

Order - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation 122 . Defendants' Bill of Costs 117 is DENIED. Signed on 10/18/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TERESA E.A. TEATER,

Case No. 3:05-cv-00604-HU

Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
PFIZER, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on September 17, 2013. Dkt. 122. Judge Hubel recommended that Defendants’ Bill of
Costs (Dkt. 117) be denied. 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[.]”); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (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 Hubel’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hubel’s
Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 122. Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Dkt. 117) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 18th day of October, 2013.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER