State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Sellars et al

Filing 36

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 30 . Defendant Mead's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 27 ) is GRANTED and Defendant Mead is dismissed from this action, with prejudice. Signed on 8/22/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
CO.,

Case No. 3:18-cv-517-PK
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL SELLARS, et al.,
Defendant(s).
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation in this
case on July 31, 2018 ECF 30. Judge Papak recommended that Defendant Ashley Mead’s Letter
Motion to Dismiss, ECF 27, 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 judge’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 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 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 30. Defendant Mead’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 27) is
GRANTED and Defendant Mead is dismissed from this action, with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 22nd day of August, 2018.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER