Noorzai v. Dabella Exteriors, LLC

Filing 16

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 14 . Defendant's motion to compel arbitration (Dkt. 6 ) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. Signed on 8/25/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) Modified on 8/25/2015 to correct Docket number for the Findings and Recommendation to 14 (mja).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

HEWAD NOORZAI,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00045-PK
ORDER

v.
DABELLA EXTERIORS, LLC,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation in this
case on July 24, 2015. Dkt. 14. Judge Papak recommended that Defendant’s motion to compel
arbitration be granted. 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).
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
PAGE 1 – ORDER

to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”). Nor,
however, 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. 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 Papak’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Papak’s
Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 16. Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration (Dkt. 6) is
GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 25th day of August, 2015.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER