The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOSE L. CORONADO, Case No. 6:21-cv-148-SB
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
KATE BROWN et al.,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on July 20, 2023. Judge Beckerman recommended that this Court
grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims without leave to amend, because
Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit are duplicative of his claims as a class member in the recently
certified class action lawsuit of Maney v. Brown, Case No. 6:20-cv-570-SB, and Plaintiff does
not allege that he opted out of that class action. 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 reviews the F&R for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the F&R, ECF 40. The
Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 34, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims
without leave to amend, but without prejudice to Plaintiff’s claims in Maney v. Brown. The Court
also finds that any appeal from this Order would be frivolous and thus would not be taken in
“good faith” as that term is used in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 15th day of August, 2023.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge