Thompson v. KC Care, LLC

Filing 31

ORDER. No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge You's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 28 . Plaintiff's Motion for Modification of the Scheduling Order and Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF 20 ) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 7/15/2019 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (pvh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MATTHEW THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:18-cv-0363-YY
ORDER

v.
KC CARE, LLC,
Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on June 17, 2019. ECF 28. Magistrate Judge You recommended that Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to amend the scheduling order and to file an amended complaint be denied. 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 You’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error
on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate
Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 28. Plaintiff’s Motion for Modification of the
Scheduling Order and Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF 20) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 15th day of July, 2019.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER