Decker v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al
Filing
23
OPINION and ORDER - Adopting Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation 19 . Signed on 10/25/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
HENRY JEROME DECKER, SR.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
GEMB LENDING, INC., a Delaware
)
corporation; and SANTANDER
)
CONSUMER USA INC., an Illinois
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
No. 3:12-cv-00632-AC
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
SIMON, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued findings and recommendations in the abovecaptioned case on September 13, 2012. Dkt. 19. Judge Acosta recommended that Defendant
Santander Consumer USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. 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 Acosta’s findings and recommendation for clear error
on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Therefore the court orders that Judge
Acosta’s findings and recommendation, Dkt. 19, are ADOPTED. The Motion to Dismiss, Dkt.
5, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief for
common-law fraud and Fifth Claim for Relief for common-law negligence are dismissed with
leave to amend.
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?