EMMANUEL ADEYINKA v. AYDEN HENDRIE, CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON, and DESIREE...

District Court, D. Oregon

EMMANUEL ADEYINKA v. AYDEN HENDRIE, CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON, and DESIREE...

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EMMANUEL ADEYINKA, Case No. 3:25-cv-1594-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

AYDEN HENDRIE, CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON, and DESIREE SHEPHERD,

Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on November 18, 2025. Judge Beckerman recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff Adeyinka’s Second Amended Complaint, ECF 14, with prejudice. 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 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”). 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 Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 20.

The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Second Amended Complaint, ECF 14. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 30th day of December, 2025. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge

Reference

Full Case Name
EMMANUEL ADEYINKA v. AYDEN HENDRIE, CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON, and DESIREE SHEPHERD
Status
Unknown