Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe-18.104.22.168
ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordi ngly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 40 . Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees (ECF 32 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's cost bill (ECF 30 ) is GRANTED IN PART. Costs are awarded in the amount of $590. Signed on 8/4/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-732-AC
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on July 14, 2017. ECF 40. Judge Acosta recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for
attorney’s fees be denied and request for costs be granted in part. 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
to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”);
PAGE 1 – ORDER
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
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.”
No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s
Findings and Recommendation, ECF 40. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF 32) is
DENIED. Plaintiff’s cost bill (ECF 30) is GRANTED IN PART. Costs are awarded in the
amount of $590.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 4th day of August, 2017.
/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?