Gosney v. Gower et al

Filing 118

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 Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 113 . Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (ECF 72 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's remaining claims are: (1) the personal ca pacity claims against Defendant Gruenwald alleged in the First and Second Claims for Relief; (2) the personal capacity claims against all Defendants except Defendant Gower alleged in the Third Claim for Relief; (3) the official capacity claim against Defendant Gruenwald alleged in the Fourth Claim for Relief; and (4) the official capacity claims against all Defendants except Defendant Gower stated in the Fifth Claim for Relief. Signed on 10/12/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DONALD ALLEN GOSNEY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-1072-SB
ORDER

v.
MICHAEL GOWER, et al.,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on September 18, 2017. ECF 113. Defendants filed a motion for
partial summary judgment. ECF 72. Judge Beckerman recommended that Defendants’ motion be
granted in part and denied in part. 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 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 Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge
Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 113. Defendants’ motion for partial summary
judgment (ECF 72) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are:
(1) the personal capacity claims against Defendant Gruenwald alleged in the First and Second
Claims for Relief; (2) the personal capacity claims against all Defendants except Defendant
Gower alleged in the Third Claim for Relief; (3) the official capacity claim against Defendant
Gruenwald alleged in the Fourth Claim for Relief; and (4) the official capacity claims against all
Defendants except Defendant Gower stated in the Fifth Claim for Relief.

PAGE 2 – ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12th day of October, 2017.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 3 – ORDER