Deloney v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon et al
Filing
40
OPINION AND ORDER - Adopting Judge Janice Stewart's Findings and Recommendation 38 . Signed on 10/25/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
DONALD DELONEY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN
)
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF
)
OREGON, STEPHEN BANTA, and
)
MICHAEL FORD,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
No. 3:11-cv-00977-ST
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
SIMON, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued findings and recommendations in the abovecaptioned case on September 28, 2012. Dkt. 38. Judge Stewart recommended that the Motion to
Dismiss, Dkt. 23, filed by Defendant Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon
(“Tri-Met”) should be granted and that the claim against Tri-Met should be dismissed with
prejudice. She also recommended that Plaintiff Donald Deloney’s Emergency Motion to
Supplement, Dkt. 33, which she construed as a Motion to Amend the Complaint to Raise the
Issue of Equitable Tolling, see Dkt. 35, should be denied as futile. 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).
If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe a standard of review. In such cases,
“[t]here is no indication that Congress . . . 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), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003)
(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 Magistrate Judge Stewart’s findings and recommendations for clear
error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Therefore the court orders that Judge
Stewart’s findings and recommendations, Dkt. 38, are ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend,
see Dkt. 33 & Dkt. 35, is DENIED. Tri-Met’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 23, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claim against Tri-Met is dismissed with prejudice.
OPINION & ORDER – Page 2
Dated this 25th day of October, 2012.
_/s/ Michael H. Simon__________
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
OPINION & ORDER – Page 3
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?