Harrison et al v. Clatskanie School District #6J et al

Filing 58

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accord ingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 53 . All claims brought by Plaintiff Allysun Harkleroad are DISMISSED. Defendant Clatskanie School District's motion for summary judgment against Ms. Harkleroad (Dkt. 42 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed on 3/19/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JOSI HARRISON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:13-CV-1837-ST
ORDER

v.
CLATSKANIE SCHOOL DISTRICT #6J,
an Oregon Public School District; JEFF
BAUGHMAN, an individual,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on February 26, 2015. Dkt. 53. Judge Stewart recommends dismissing all claims
brought by Plaintiff Allysun Harkleroad under U.S. District Court District of Oregon Local Rule
83-12 because Ms. Harkleroad has failed to provide the Court with her current address for
approximately eight months, which well exceeds the rule’s 60-day limitation. Judge Stewart also
recommends denying Defendant Clatskanie School District’s motion for summary judgment
against Ms. Harkleroad (Dkt. 42) as moot. 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)(C). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the
PAGE 1 – ORDER

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 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 Stewart’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Stewart’s
Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 53. All claims brought by Plaintiff Allysun Harkleroad are
DISMISSED. Defendant Clatskanie School District’s motion for summary judgment against
Ms. Harkleroad (Dkt. 42) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 2 – ORDER