Dillon et al v. Clackamas County et al

Filing 225

ORDER - Plaintiffs timely filed objections (ECF 223 ), to which Defendants responded. ECF 224 . Plaintiffs object to the entirety of Judge You's Findings and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed Judge You's Findings and Recommendation de novo and adopts them. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 210 ) and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. Signed on 5/19/2020 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

Case 3:14-cv-00820-YY

Document 225

Filed 05/19/20

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WILLIAM DILLON, SCOTT GRAUE,
DAVID HODGES, and ALBERT LOVE,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:14-cv-820-YY
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
CLACKAMAS COUNTY and
CRAIG ROBERTS,
Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendations
in this case on April 20, 2020. ECF 221. Judge You recommended that Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (ECF 210) be granted in full and the case be dismissed with prejudice.
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 objects to a magistrate judge’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

Case 3:14-cv-00820-YY

Document 225

Filed 05/19/20

Page 2 of 2

For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither
party has objected, 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 judge’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but
not otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, 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
judge’s recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
Plaintiffs timely filed objections (ECF 223), to which Defendants responded. ECF 224.
Plaintiffs object to the entirety of Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation. The Court has
reviewed Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation de novo and adopts them. The Court
GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 210) and DISMISSES this case
with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of May, 2020.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER