Hollowell v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest
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 Acostas Findings and Recommendation. ECF #152 . Defendants supplemental bill of costs (ECF #146 ) isGRANTED. The Court awards the additional costs of $646.80 to the previously awarded $4,736.60, for a total of $5,383.40 Signed on 9/22/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case No. Civ. No. 3:12-cv-2128-AC
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN
OF THE NORTWEST, doing business as
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation
in this case on August 31, 2017. ECF 152. Defendant filed a supplemental bill of costs on
August 2, 2017. ECF 146. Judge Acosta recommended that the Defendant’s motion for
supplemental costs be granted. No party 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 enac
ting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which
no objections are filed.”); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (holding that 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 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. ECF 152. Defendant’s supplemental bill of costs (ECF 146) is
GRANTED. The Court awards the additional costs of $646.80 to the previously awarded
$4,736.60, for a total of $5,383.40
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 22nd day of September, 2017.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 2 – ORDER
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?