IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

GINA JOHNSON, et al., Civ. No. 1:23-cv-1261-AA Plaintiffs, ORDER v. ASANTE HEALTH SYSTEM, a public benefit corporation, Defendant. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke. ECF No. 62. This case was consolidated with others “for the limited purpose of allowing the parties to brief motions for summary judgment on the issues of undue hardship and reasonable accommodation.” F&R at 1. Judge Clarke recommends that Defendant’s Consolidated Summary Judgment Motion, ECF No. 26, be GRANTED as to Plaintiff Johnson, that Plaintiff’s Motion to amend admissions, ECF No. 42, be GRANTED, and that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 30, be DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD 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 filed objections to the F&R, ECF No. 66. Defendant filed a Response, which, as to Plaintiff Johnson, substantially relies on the F&R. See ECF Nos. 67 and 68. The Court has reviewed the F&R, the filings, and the record and

finds no error. CONCLUSION The F&R, ECF No. 62, is ADOPTED in full. Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Johnson. Plaintiff’s Motion to

amend Admissions, ECF No. 42, is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 30, is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _5_t_h_ day of September 2025.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge