Kight v. Clayton ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON RONALD D. KIGHT, Case No. 2:15-cv-1965-SU Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. C. CLAYTON; SGT. ESPINOZA, Defendants. Michael H. Simon, District Judge. United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on June 4, 2020. ECF 116. Judge Sullivan recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend should be DENIED, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED, and the case should be DISMISSED. No party 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 files an objection 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 Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 116. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF 112) is DENIED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 100) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 29th day of June, 2020. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge