v. Richardson et al
Filing
38
Opinion and Order - Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation 36 . This case is dismissed and all pending motions are denied as moot. Signed on 12/7/2011 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
ANTHONY J. RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 10-1288-PK
OPINION AND ORDER
MAX WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
Anthony J. Richardson
12735420
EOCI
2500 Westgate
Pendleton, Oregon 97801
Pro se
Andrew D. Hallman
State of Oregon Department of Justice
Trial Division
1162 Court Street, NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
Attorney for defendants
SIMON, District Judge:
On November 4, 2011, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak filed Findings and
Recommendations in this case (doc. # 36). Judge Papak recommended that the defendants’
Opinion and Order Page 1
motion to dismiss (doc. # 13) be granted. No objections have been filed.
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’ 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 Sullivan’s findings and recommendations for clear
error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
Opinion and Order Page 2
Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation (doc. #
36). This case is dismissed and all pending motions are denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of December, 2011.
/s/
Opinion and Order Page 3
Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?