Johnson v. Elton et al

Filing 37

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. 32 . The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dkt. 25 . Signed on 7/24/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MICHELLE ARYELLAH JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:13-cv-02144-ST
ORDER

v.
TRAVIS ELTON, TROY BECNEL, and
JOSH JONES,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on July 1, 2014. Dkt. 32. Judge Stewart recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s
motion for declaratory judgment. Dkt. 25. 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
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[.]”); 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 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. 32. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory
Judgment Pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dkt. 25.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 24th day of July, 2014.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER