Vrooman et al v. Armstrong

Filing 27

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 14. This case is dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed on 6/29/2016 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RONALD CHARLES VROOMAN and
HENRY LYLE MAYHEW,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00770-YY
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
KATHERINE D. ARMSTRONG,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on June 8, 2016. ECF 14. Judge You recommended that this case be dismissed with
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
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).

PAGE 1 – ORDER

Plaintiff Ronald Charles Vrooman has filed a series of “Notices,” which the Court
construes as objections to the Findings and Recommendation.1 ECF 21-25. Vrooman’s Notices
are not a model of clarity. Vrooman appears to argue that Judge You has recused herself,
although he provides no evidence of this. See ECF 23 at 3; ECF 25 at 4. Vrooman also argues
that the filing fee is unlawful and that the electronic filing system denies him due process. Id.
at 4-5. These arguments are not well-taken. Vrooman includes a copy of the Findings and
Recommendation over which he has written specific objections by hand. ECF 23 at 5-11. The
Court has reviewed de novo those portions of Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation to
which Vrooman has objected. The Court agrees with Judge You’s reasoning and ADOPTS those
portions of the Findings and Recommendation.
For those portions of a magistrate’s findings and recommendations to which no 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 Magistrates 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.”
1

The Findings and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable to Plaintiff Henry
Lyle Mayhew. ECF 26. The Court notes that every unrepresented party has a continuing
responsibility to notify the Clerk’s Office whenever his or her mailing address changes. LR 8310(a).
PAGE 2 – ORDER

For those portions of Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation to which no 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.
The Court ADOPTS Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 14. This case is
dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of June, 2016.

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

PAGE 3 – ORDER