IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

DALE ALAN BARTON, No. 6:24-cv-00140-CL

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

ANDREW L. BOWER, M.D.; MICHELLE DAVIES; WARREN ROBERTS, M.D.; and HEIDI MILER, sued jointly and severally in their individual capacities,

Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke, ECF No. 93. Judge Clarke recommends that Defendant Dr. Bower’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 59, be GRANTED and that the claims against him be DISMISSED. 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.” Here, Plaintiff filed Objections to the F&R twelve days after they were due. See ECF No. 105. Although the Objections are untimely, the Court reviewed them anyway and determined that they are not meritorious. The F&R, ECF No. 93, is therefore ADOPTED and Defendant Dr. Bower’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 59, is GRANTED, as set forth in the F&R. The claims against him are DISMISSED.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this ___1_4_t_h___ day of November 2025.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge