Fredrickson et al v. Starbucks Corporation

Filing 105

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accor dingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation (ECF 103 ). Plaintiffs' motion for a determination that they are entitled to fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is DENIED. Signed on 4/21/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

HANNAH FREDRICKSON, ASHLEY
KRENING, and MAURIALEE BRACKE,

Case No. 3:13-cv-29-SB
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a
Washington Corporation,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on March 17, 2017. ECF 103. Judge Beckerman recommended that
Plaintiffs’ motion for a determination that they are entitled to fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c) (ECF 95) should 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 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 enacting [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 Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge
Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF 103). Plaintiffs’ motion for a determination
that they are entitled to fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 21st day of April, 2017.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER