Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-73.180.2.94

Filing 53

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 49 . The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Cost Bill (ECF 45 ), awarding costs in the amount of $658.25. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees (ECF 46 ). Signed on 12/19/2016 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GLACIER FILMS (USA), INC. and
GLACIER FILMS 1 LLC,

Case No. 3:15-cv-1729-SB
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
HUMBERTO ALVARADO TENORIO,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on November 22, 2016. Judge Beckerman recommended that the
Court grant Plaintiff’s Cost Bill in the amount of $658.25. Judge Beckerman also recommended
that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees or, in the alternative, grant a reduced
amount of attorney’s fees in the amount of $218.75. 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],
PAGE 1 – ORDER

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 review is not required in the absence of objections, 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 findings
and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
Because Plaintiff did not object to Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation,
including not objecting to her recommendation that attorney’s fees be denied, this 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,
therefore, adopts Judge Beckerman’s recommendation to deny attorney’s fees and disregards her
alternative recommendation to reduce attorney’s fees as moot.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 49. The
Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Cost Bill (ECF 45), awarding costs in the amount of $658.25. The
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF 46).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of December, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 2 – ORDER