Dillon et al v. Clackamas County et al

Filing 28

ORDER - As no party has 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. 24 . Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. 19 ) is GRANTED, but Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended complaint which complies with Judge Stewart's rulings on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Signed on 12/2/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON WILLIAM DILLON, SCOTT GRAUE, and DAVID HODGES, individually, on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Case No. 3:14-cv-00820-ST ORDER Plaintiffs, v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY and CRAIG ROBERTS, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Clackamas County Defendants. Michael H. Simon, District Judge. United States Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation in this case on October 23, 2014. Dkt. 24. Judge Stewart recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, with leave granted to Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. 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, however, 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.”). Nor does the Act “preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. And 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.” As no party has 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. 24. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. 19) is GRANTED, but Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended complaint which complies with Judge Stewart’s rulings on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 2d day of December, 2014. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge PAGE 2 – ORDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?