Kelman et al v. Evraz, Inc. NA
ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordin gly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 15 . Plaintiffs' motion for remand (ECF 8 ) is GRANTED. This case is remanded to the Multnomah County Circuit Court. Signed on 1/19/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DAVID B. KELMAN, STEVE W. PAPPAS,
and JASON J. RAY,
Case No. 3:16-cv-1888-PK
EVRAZ, INC. N.A. and JOSHUA STOUT,
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation in this
case on December 19, 2016. ECF 15. Judge Papak recommended that Plaintiffs’ motion to
remand should 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’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’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 Papak’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Papak’s
Findings and Recommendation, ECF 15. Plaintiffs’ motion for remand (ECF 8) is GRANTED.
This case is remanded to the Multnomah County Circuit Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of January, 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?