“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.”
How later courts described this case
- “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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION
CHAD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff, No. 1:22-cv-01002-CL
v. ORDER
KATE BROWN; KRIS STRICKLER,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation filed by
Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke. ECF No. 6. Judge Clarke recommends that this case
be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections 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).
For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to
which neither party has objected, 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.”). Although no review is required in the
absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the
district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The
Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely
objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the
face of the record.”
In this case, no party has filed objections to the F&R. The Court has reviewed
the F&R and finds no error. The F&R, ECF No. 6, is therefore ADOPTED. This case
is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this _1_3__th_ day of February 2023.
/s/Ann Aiken
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge