Leiss v. Secretary of the State of North Dakota

Filing 38

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is appare nt. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 36 . The Court declines to extend thedeadline to serve the Amended Complaint and DISMISSES the action without prejudice. Signed on 12/18/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. Copy mailed to Plaintiff 12/18/2018. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CURTIS B. LEISS,

Case No. 3:17-cv-01936-AC

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on November 19th, 2018. ECF 36. Magistrate Judge Acosta recommended that the
Court decline to extend the deadline to serve the Amended Complaint and dismiss the 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 judge’s findings and recommendations,

PAGE 1 – ORDER

“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.”); 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 Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error
on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate
Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 36. The Court declines to extend the
deadline to serve the Amended Complaint and DISMISSES the action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of December, 2018.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER