The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DARRIN V. DAILY, Case No. 2:21-cv-398-YY
Plaintiff(s), ORDER
v.
L. HALBERT, et al.,
Defendant(s).
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on August 8, 2022. Judge You recommended that this Court grant Defendant’ Partial
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF 30). No party has filed objections.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (Act), a 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). 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 You’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge You’s Findings
and Recommendation, ECF 34. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF 30). Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Brown,
Rosenblum, Peters, Lemmens, Sobotta, Rabb, Miles, and Neistadt are DISMISSED with
prejudice. This action will proceed solely on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Anglin and
Halbert.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 26th day of September, 2022.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge