Jonathan Dakota Appelt v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JONATHAN DAKOTA APPELT, Case No. 6:24-cv-857-JR Plaintiff, ORDER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

Plaintiff Jonathan Dakota Appelt, an adult in custody at the Oregon State Correctional Institution, brings this Federal Tort Claims Act action pro se. Plaintiff alleges that members of the U.S. Marshals Service assaulted Plaintiff while arresting him, and that the assault caused him serious injuries. United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on January 7, 2026. Judge Russo recommended that this Court deny Appelt’s motion for default, ECF 19, and grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), ECF 20. 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”).

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 Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 38. Plaintiff’s motion for default, ECF 19, is DENIED. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF 20, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF 2, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2026. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge