International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 40 v. Columbia Grain

Filing 23

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. Accord ingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation 21 . Defendant Columbia Grain's motion to dismiss 8 is GRANTED without prejudice. Plaintiff Local 40's request to amend the complaint 15 is GRANTED. Signed on 12/17/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 40,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00513-AC

Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
COLUMBIA GRAIN, aka
WILLAMETTE STEVEDORING,
Defendant.

Thomas K. Doyle, Bennett Hartman Morris & Kaplan, LLP, 210 S.W. Morrison Street, Suite
500, Portland, OR 97204. Attorney for Plaintiff.
Francis T. Barnwell and Kirk S. Peterson, Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson, 200 S.W. Market
Street, Suite 1900, Portland, OR 97201. Attorneys for Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on October 9, 2013. Dkt. 21. Judge Acosta recommended that (1) Columbia Grain’s
motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8) be granted without prejudice, and (2) Local 40’s request to amend the
complaint (Dkt. 15) be granted. 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

PAGE 1 – ORDER

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 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 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. Dkt. 21. Defendant Columbia Grain’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8)
is GRANTED without prejudice. Plaintiff Local 40’s request to amend the complaint (Dkt. 15)
is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of December, 2013.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER