Joseph v. West Linn Paper Company

Filing 32

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Acco rdingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation (ECF 27 ). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF 19 ) and awards economic damages in the amount of $107,751.93 and noneconomic damages in the amount of $100,000, for a total award in the amount of $207,751.93. Signed on 5/12/2020 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

Case 3:18-cv-01069-SB

Document 32

Filed 05/12/20

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DON JOSEPH,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:18-cv-1069-SB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
WEST LINN PAPER COMPANY,
Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on April 24, 2020. ECF 27. Judge Beckerman recommended that the Court grant
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and award economic damages in the amount of
$107,751.93 and noneconomic damages in the amount of $100,000. 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 an objection to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations,

PAGE 1 – ORDER

Case 3:18-cv-01069-SB

Document 32

Filed 05/12/20

Page 2 of 2

“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 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 27). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment (ECF 19) and awards economic damages in the amount of $107,751.93 and
noneconomic damages in the amount of $100,000, for a total award in the amount of
$207,751.93.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12th day of May, 2020.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER