Dillon et al v. Clackamas County et al

Filing 102

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge You's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 95 . Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition (ECF 77 ) is DENIED. Signed on 4/21/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WILLIAM DILLON, et al., individually,
and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated,

Case No. 3:14-cv-820-YY
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
CLACKAMAS COUNTY and CRAIG
ROBERTS, both individually and in his
official capacity as Sheriff,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on April 6, 2017. ECF 95. Judge You recommended that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint/Petition (ECF 77) 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 You’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge You’s Findings
and Recommendation, ECF 95. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition
(ECF 77) 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