Benoit v. Grasley et al

Filing 40

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 35 . The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF 12 . The Court DISMISSES (1) Plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim, and (2) Plaintiff's abuse of a vulnerable person claim to the extent it is premised on the "person with a disability" clause. The Court DENIES Defendants' motion in all other respects. Signed on 6/5/2024 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CYNTHIA BENOIT, as a personal
representative of the estate of IKAIKA
RYAN CHUNG, deceased,

Case No. 3:23-cv-903-JR
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW GRASLEY; MEGAN HEIDT;
INTEGRATED MEDICAL SOLUTIONS,
LLC, a Texas limited liability company also
known as INTEGRATED MEDICAL
SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERAL BUREAU
OF PRISONS; and UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this
case on May 13, 2024. Judge Russo recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 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

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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 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 35. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 12. The Court DISMISSES (1) Plaintiff’s Rehabilitation
Act claim, and (2) Plaintiff’s abuse of a vulnerable person claim to the extent it is premised on
the “person with a disability” clause. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion in all other
respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 5th day of June, 2024.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER