Lovelady v. Legacy Health

Filing 23

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 21 . The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF 10 . The Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's claims under Oregon Revised Statutes  7; 659A.030. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims under Title VII with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within 14 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails timely to file an amended complaint, the Court will enter a Judgment dismissing this case. Signed on 3/5/2025 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CORY LOVELADY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:24-cv-1014-SB
ORDER

v.
LEGACY HEALTH,
Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on February 14, 2025. Judge Beckerman recommends that this
Court grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Judge Beckerman recommends that the Court
dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims under Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.030 as time
barred and dismiss with leave to amend Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII. 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, the 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.
The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 21. The
Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 10. The Court dismisses with prejudice
Plaintiff’s claims under Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.030. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s
claims under Title VII with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint
within 14 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails timely to file an amended complaint, the Court will
enter a Judgment dismissing this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 5th day of March, 2025.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 2 – ORDER