Technical Security Integration, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
Filing
36
ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendations. Dkt. 29 . Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings (Dkt. 9 ) is DENIED. Signed on 7/30/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
TECHNICAL SECURITY
INTEGRATION, INC., a Washington
corporation,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01895-SB
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania
corporation,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on May 27, 2015. Dkt. 29. Judge Beckerman recommended that
Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings (Dkt. 9) be denied.
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 – OPINION AND ORDER
For those portions of a magistrate’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’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’s
recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
Defendant timely filed objections (Dkt. 32) to which Plaintiff responded (Dkt. 34). The
Court has reviewed de novo Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, as well as
Defendant’s objections, Plaintiffs’ response, and the underlying briefing in this case. The Court
agrees with Judge Beckerman’s reasoning and adopts the Findings and Recommendation.
For those portions of Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation to which neither
party has objected, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and
reviews those matters for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
///
///
///
///
///
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendations. Dkt. 29.
Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings (Dkt. 9) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 30th day of July, 2015.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND 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?