IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RADAGAST PET FOOD, INC., an Case No. 3:19-cv-01467-JR Oregon corporation, ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

CENTINELA FEED, INC., a California corporation; THE LOTUS PET FOOD, INC., a California corporation,

Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On May 18, 2021, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings & Recommendation (F&R), ECF 74, recommending that Defendants’ Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees, ECF 62, be granted in the amount of $115,398.00, and that Defendants’ Bill of Costs, ECF 65, be granted in the amount of $400 be granted. ECF 74 at 8. No party filed objections. DISCUSSION Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “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.”

But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn,

, 149–50 (1985); United States v.

Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas,

. No party having filed objections, the Court has reviewed the F&R, ECF 74, and accepts Judge Russo’s conclusions. Judge Russo’s F&R, ECF 74, is adopted in full. Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees, ECF 62, for fees in the amount of $115,398.00, and GRANTS Defendants’ Bill of Costs, ECF 65, in the amount of $400.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 3rd day of June, 2021.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge