David Jefferson v. John L. Hardman; Kelsi Eyestone

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION DAVID JEFFERSON, Civ. No. 1:25-cv-00022-CL Plaintiff, ORDER v. JOHN L. HARDMAN; KELSI EYESTONE, Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge.

This case comes before the Court on Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. ECF No. 10. Judge Clarke recommends that self- represented Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and that Plaintiff’s IFP application, ECF No. 2, be DENIED as moot. The Court adopts Judge Clarke’s recommendation in full.

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 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.”). 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.” Id. at 154. 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.”

In this case, Plaintiff has filed no Objections. The Court has reviewed the F&R and the record and finds no error. The F&R, ECF No. 10, is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice and Plaintiff’s IFP application, ECF No. 2, is DENIED as MOOT. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this ___1_1_t_h___ day of February 2026.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge