Millbrooke v. City of Canby et al

Filing 55

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. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation 53 . Millbrooke's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 46 is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ANDREW MILLBROOKE,

Case No. 3:12-cv-00168-AC

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
CITY OF CANBY, OFFICER MURPHY,
personally, BRET SMITH, both individually
and in his capacity as Police Chief,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on February 4, 2014. Dkt. 53. Judge Acosta recommended that Plaintiff Andrew
Millbrooke’s (“Millbrooke”) Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Dkt. 46) 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 recommendation, “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 recommendation 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 recommendation 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, Dkt. 53. Millbrooke’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint, Dkt. 46, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 24th day of February, 2014.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER