Flores v. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON RICHARD J. FLORES, Case No. 3:23-cv-462-SB Plaintiff, ORDER v. KATE BROWN, et al., Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on January 2, 2024. ECF 51. Judge Beckerman recommended that this Court deny Flores’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF 49).1 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court Flores’s motion is titled “Motion: Injunction to Stop Retaliation.” 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, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (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, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (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, 474 U.S. at 154. 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 Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF 51). The Court DENIES Flores’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF 49).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2024. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge