Simons v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Filing
25
ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is app arent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 23 . Plaintiff's retaliation claims are dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiffs race discrimination claims are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order. Signed on 1/18/2019 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DMITRI SIMONS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00755-SB
ORDER
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on December 6, 2018. ECF 23. Magistrate Judge Beckerman
recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. Specifically, Magistrate
Judge Beckerman recommended that Plaintiff’s retaliation claims, which Plaintiff stated that he
wished to dismiss, be dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff’s race discrimination claims be
dismissed 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,
“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 Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear
error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 23. Plaintiff’s retaliation
claims are dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiff’s race discrimination claims are dismissed
without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 18th day of January, 2019.
/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?