IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION

MICHAEL BENJAMIN HAMBLETON,

Plaintiff, No. 1:23-cv-00377-MK

v. ORDER

MELISSA DICOSTANZO; ANDREW DAVIS; TROY HAMILTON; GARY CLARK; SERGEANT CARPENTER; DEPUTY COLEMAN; DEPUTY MURPHY; DEPUTY THORNBOURE; DEPUTY LEMKE; DEPUTY DAWSON; DEPUTY KOKEMO; DEPUTY AGULAR; DEPUTY BANETEZ; DEPUTY WOODWARD; DEPUTY JOHN DOE; DEPUTY JANE DOE; MEDICAL STAFF JANE DOE; JAIL COMMANDER TESCALA,

Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai. ECF No. 47. Judge Kasubhai recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 40, be granted as to all claims. 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, no party has filed objections. The Court has reviewed the F&R and finds no error. The F&R, ECF No. 47, is therefore ADOPTED and this case is

DISMISSED without leave to refile in the District of Oregon. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _2_2_n_d_ day of August 2024.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge