Smith v. Opportunity Financial, LLC

Filing 14

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordin gly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 12 . Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF 8 , is GRANTED IN PART. The Court awards attorney's fees in the amount of $3,805 and costs in the amount of $402. Signed on 5/6/2022 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

Case 3:22-cv-00140-JR

Document 14

Filed 05/06/22

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SHAWN SMITH,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:22-cv-140-JR
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL, LLC,
dba OPPLOANS,
Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on April 19, 2022. Judge Russo recommended that this Court grant in part Plaintiff’s
motion for default judgment. 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 objects 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

Case 3:22-cv-00140-JR

Document 14

Filed 05/06/22

Page 2 of 2

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 Russo’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s
Findings and Recommendation, ECF 12. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, ECF 8, is
GRANTED IN PART. The Court awards attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,805 and costs in the
amount of $402.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of May, 2022.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER