Murphy v. Precision Castparts Corp. et al
ORDER - No party having made objections, 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. Acco rdingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 155 . Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel (ECF 134 ) is GRANTED. Signed on 6/27/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
KEVIN MURPHY, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Case No. 3:16-cv-521-SB
PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., MARK
DONEGAN, and SHAWN R. HAGEL,
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on June 6, 2018. ECF 155. Judge Beckerman recommended that Plaintiffs’ motion
for class certification 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 judge’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 – ORDER
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 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 judge’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 judge’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 Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge
Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 155. Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel (ECF 134) is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 27th day of June, 2018.
/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?