Lee v. Ives

Filing 8

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 6 , and dismisses this action without prejudice. Signed on 10/13/2016 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BRANDON CHE LEE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:16-cv-786-SI
ORDER

v.
RICHARD IVES,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on September 19, 2016. ECF 6. Judge Sullivan recommended that the Court should
dismiss this action without prejudice. 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.”);
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.”
No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sullivan’s
Findings and Recommendation, ECF 6, and dismisses this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of October, 2016.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER