IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

TERENCE WILLIAM CARR,

Plaintiff, No. 6:19-cv-01706-MK

v. ORDER

OLGA ALVAREZ; JILL HOELTING; VIVIENNE CHAPLEO; WALTER R. MILLER, JR.; JIM PORTER; SHANE L. NELSON; ANGELA LEE-MANDLIN; JONATHAN CHAR,

Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai on November 22, 2021. ECF No. 80. Judge Kasubhai recommends that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 57, 58, 59, 65, be GRANTED and this case be DISMISSED with prejudice. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, 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 files objections 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). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to

which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn,

(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.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.”

. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely

objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.” In this case, Plaintiff has filed Objections, ECF No. 82. Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s Objections and the time for doing so has now passed. The Court has reviewed the filings and the record and finds no error. The F&R is ADOPTED. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 57, 58, 59, 65, are GRANTED

and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _1_5__th_ day of February 2022.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge