From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
May 18, 2018
Case No. 3:18-cv-0291-SB (D. Or. May. 18, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 3:18-cv-0291-SB

05-18-2018

JEFF SMITH, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC, Defendant.


ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on May 3, 2018. ECF 12. Judge Beckerman recommended that Defendant's unopposed motion to compel arbitration be granted and that this case be dismissed. 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 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 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'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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 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 party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 12. Defendant's unopposed motion to compel arbitration (ECF 10) is GRANTED. This case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 18th day of May, 2018.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Smith v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
May 18, 2018
Case No. 3:18-cv-0291-SB (D. Or. May. 18, 2018)
Case details for

Smith v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC

Case Details

Full title:JEFF SMITH, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: May 18, 2018

Citations

Case No. 3:18-cv-0291-SB (D. Or. May. 18, 2018)

Citing Cases

Cuenca-Vidarte v. Samuel

Accordingly, the Court finds that the arbitration clause within the APC Agreement is a valid and enforceable…

Charles v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs.

In fact, the magistrate judges in this district typically issue findings and recommendations and not orders…