IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

J.S.S. Case No. 3:24-cv-413-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

NORTHERN OREGON CORRECTIONS, a regional correctional facility; and JOSUE PEREZ,

Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge. United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on August 5th, 2024. Judge Russo recommended that the Court deny Defendant Josue Perez’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s (1) hostile work environment claim and (2) aiding and abetting a hostile work environment claim. 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.”

(b)(1). If a party objects 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,

(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,

(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,

. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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 Russo’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. The Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF 16). The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 9). As this case proceeds, the Court encourages the

parties to provide factual details regarding the circumstances of Plaintiff’s work during her incarceration and the legal implications, if any, that would result from those circumstances. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2024.

/s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge