Jessica Rogers-Hall v. Douglas Cloutier, Ms. Montgomery, State of Oregon, and...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JESSICA ROGERS-HALL, Case No. 3:19-cv-1415-AR Plaintiff, ORDER v. DOUGLAS CLOUTIER, MS. MONTGOMERY, STATE OF OREGON, and JOHN/JANE DOE SECURITY STAFF, Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on November 11, 2025. Judge Armistead recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 94, that the Court dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against Ms. Montgomery and the State of Oregon, and that the Court direct Plaintiff either to file a stipulated notice voluntarily dismissing all Doe Defendants per Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or, alternatively to move to amend her complaint and identify any unnamed defendant. 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 Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.

The Court ADOPTS Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 107. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 94, without prejudice as to Plaintiff’s claims against Ms. Montgomery and the State of Oregon. The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims against Douglas Cloutier and Doe Defendants. The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff either to file a stipulated notice voluntarily dismissing all Doe Defendants per Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or, alternatively, if she intends to proceed with her claims against Doe Defendants, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to move to amend her complaint and identify any unnamed defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 1st day of June, 2026. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge