Opinion
No. 11-CV-774-PK
03-08-2012
IVAN B. LANGLEY and KARLEE E. LANGLEY, Plaintiffs, v. SHIRLEY E. JONES and CHARLEE A. PHILLIPS, JR., Defendants.
Ivan B. Langley Karlee E. Langley Pro se Timothy O'Hanlon Mautz & O'Hanlon Attorney for Defendants
ORDER
Ivan B. Langley
Karlee E. Langley
Pro se
Timothy O'Hanlon
Mautz & O'Hanlon
Attorney for Defendants
SIMON, District Judge:
On January 10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak filed Findings and Recommendations in this case (doc. # 31). Judge Papak recommended that Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and that Plaintiffs be allowed 30 days to amend their complaint, if appropriate. No objections have been filed. [Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint.]
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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate'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, however, no objections are filed, the Magistrates Act does not prescribe any standard of review. In such cases, "[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Magistrates Act] intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report[.]" Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court must review de novo magistrate's findings and recommendations if objection is made, "but not otherwise").
Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates 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's findings and recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record."
No objections having been made, the court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Hubel's findings and recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (docket # 31). Because Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint, this case is dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge