The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
TYLER GARDNER, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-1256-SB
Plaintiffs, ORDER
v.
KATE BROWN, former Governor of Oregon,
et al.,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on June 24, 2025. Judge Beckerman recommended that the Court
grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff Tyler Gardner’s motion to file an amended complaint. 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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 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, the 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 in her Findings and Recommendation is apparent.
The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 85. The
Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Gardner’s motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, ECF 67, as described by Judge Beckerman.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of July, 2025.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge