Donald Johnson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v....

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON DONALD JOHNSON, individually and on Case No. 3:24-cv-01583-AR behalf of all other similarly situated, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Plaintiffs, RECOMMENDATIONS v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendant.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

No objections to Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”), ECF 48, have been filed. For the following reasons, this Court ADOPTS the F&R. STANDARDS Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “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. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

CONCLUSION Judge Armistead’s F&R, ECF 48, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of December, 2025.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge