IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LIVING WELL PDX, PC, an Oregon Case No. 3:21-cv-1074-AR Corporation, ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, and XAVIER BECERRA, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services,

Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on January 10, 2024. Judge Armistead recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. 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.”

(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 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 Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 40. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 36, and GRANTS Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 37. The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 29th day of January, 2024. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge