Reddy v. Morrissey

Filing 21

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 19 . Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF 5 ) is DENIED. Signed on 10/3/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RAJASHAKHER P. REDDY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00938-YY
ORDER

v.
MANJU MORRISSEY,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on September 17, 2018. ECF 19. Magistrate Judge You recommended that
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 5) should 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,
“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],
PAGE 1 – ORDER

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 19. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 5) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of October, 2018.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER