Johnson v. Multnomah County Sheriff Office ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON OMAR J. JOHNSON, Case No. 3:22-cv-1980 Plaintiff, ORDER v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. Michael H. Simon, District Judge. United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on February 8, 2023. Judge You recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case without prejudice.1 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 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) provides that, with respect to proceedings in forma pauperis, the Court shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 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 F&R, ECF 8. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s amended complaint without prejudice. ECF 7. The Court further finds that any appeal from this Order would be frivolous and 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 March, 2023. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge