Jason Lewis Simon v. The Bountiful Company, fka Nature’s Bounty Co., a foreign...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JASON LEWIS SIMON, Case No. 3:24-cv-597-AR Plaintiff, ORDER v. THE BOUNTIFUL COMPANY, fka Nature’s Bounty Co., a foreign corporation; NORDIC NATURALS, INC.; PFIZER, INC.; QUTEN RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LLC; BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC; PHARMAVITE, LLC; and CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on March 30, 2026. ECF 84. Judge Armistead recommended that the Court GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss, ECF 60, rejecting Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s claims are preempted but dismissing Plaintiff’s Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act claim because it is time-barred and dismissing Plaintiff’s intentional misrepresentation claim because he has not plead reliance and thus does not state a claim.

Judge Armistead also recommended that this Court GRANT Defendants’ supplemental motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, ECF 56. Finally, Judge Armistead recommended that the motions to dismiss be granted without prejudice and with leave to amend. 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 84. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 60, and GRANTS Defendants’ supplemental motion to dismiss, ECF 56. The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint to the extent described in Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation. If Plaintiff believes that he can cure the deficiencies identified, he may replead within 28 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2026. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge