The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ARNOLD EATON, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00818-YY
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
MICHAEL REESE, Director of the Oregon
Department of Corrections; ALL FORMER
DIRECTORS OF THE OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ALL
CURRENT AND FORMER
ADMINISTRATORS AND EMPLOYEES
WITHIN THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS’ OFFENDER INFORMATION
AND SENTENCING COMPUTATION UNIT;
MICHAEL HSU, Chairperson of the Oregon
Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision; KIM
COONS, Employee of the Oregon Board of Parole
and Post Prison Supervision; ALL CURRENT
AND FORMER MEMBERS OF THE OREGON
BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON
SUPERVISION; and WASHINGTON COUNTY
SHERIFF STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR
CERTIFYING PRISONER TIME SERVED
CREDITS,
Defendants.
Adrienne Nelson, District Judge:
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued a findings and recommendation in this
case, ECF 35, on July 2, 2026. Judge You recommended that this Court grant defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, ECF 26, and dismiss this case. No party has filed objections. The matter is now before
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
A district court judge 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)(C). In the absence of objections,
no review is required, and no standard of review is prescribed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54 (1985);
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nonetheless, a district court
Judge is not precluded from reviewing the report sua sponte under a de novo standard or any other standard
of review. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154; Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017). Courts in this
district have followed the Advisory Committee’s recommendation that, when no timely objection is filed,
findings and recommendations be reviewed for “clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment; see, e.g., Hayden v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1125,
1127 (D. Or. 2015) (following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviewing magistrate
Judge’s findings and recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.”).
Because no party in this case has made objections, this Court reviews Judge You’s findings and
recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ADOPTS Judge
You’s findings and recommendation, ECF 35. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
ECF 26, is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. Judgment shall follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 25th day of August, 2026. _
Adrienne Nelson
United States District Judge