Killa Bees Distribution LLC, et al. v. Left Coast Financial Solutions, Inc., et...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON KILLA BEES DISTRIBUTION LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-1629-JR Plaintiffs, ORDER v. LEFT COAST FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on October 14, 2025. Judge Russo recommended that this Court Grant Defendant Nicholas Rupp’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the claims against him with prejudice.

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 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, the 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 the Findings and Recommendation, ECF 101. The Court GRANTS Defendant Rupp’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 95. The Court dismisses the claims against Defendant Rupp with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 31st day of October, 2025. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge