Blocker v. Universal Music Publishing Group

Filing 20

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation. Dkt. 14 . Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 7 ) is DISMISSED. Signed on 4/3/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TYRONE BLOCKER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:14-cv-01650-SB
ORDER

v.
UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING
GROUP,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on February 26, 2015. Dkt. 14. Judge Beckerman recommended
that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 7) be dismissed with 30 days leave to replead.
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).
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 . . .
PAGE 1 – ORDER

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, the Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent.
The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation. Dkt. 14.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 7) is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of April, 2015.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER