The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
SARA BROWN, Case No. 3:23-cv-78-YY
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING
COMMUNITIES, INC. and STACEY
ELLIOTT,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on April 24, 2023. ECF 16. Judge You recommended that this Court grant
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF 7, and dismiss this case. 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).
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 15. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration,
ECF 7. Because “[g]eneral contract and agency principles apply in determining the enforcement
of an arbitration agreement by or against nonsignatories,” Mundi v. Union Sec. Life Ins. Co., 555
F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009), and Defendant Stacey Elliott’s alleged acts were performed as
the employee and agent of Defendant Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., all of
Plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration. Thus, the Court dismisses this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 28th day of June, 2023.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge