Fausto v. Premo
Filing
27
ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews the Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderk's Findings and Recommendation. Dkt. 5 . The Court DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Dkt. 1 , and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. Signed on 6/26/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) Modified on 6/26/2015 (mja).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOSE MARISCAL FAUSTO,
Petitioner,
Case No. 6:14-cv-00966-JE
ORDER
v.
JEFF PREMO,
Respondent.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on June 1, 2015. Dkt. 25. Judge Jelderks recommended that the Court deny the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jose Mariscal Fausto (“Petitioner”), Dkt. 1, and enter a
judgment dismissing this case with prejudice.
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)(C). If a party files objections to a magistrate’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’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’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 the Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the
record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderk’s Findings and
Recommendation. Dkt. 5. The Court DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Dkt. 1,
and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 26th day of June, 2015.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 2 – ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?