Opinion
3:21-cv-01740-CL
07-17-2023
THOMAS ALVARADO, Plaintiff, v. DEWAYNE HENDRIX; FCI SHERIDAN, Defendants.
ORDER
ANN AIKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke. ECF No. 44. Judge Clarke recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 24, be granted.
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 Objections, ECF No. 46, and Defendants have filed a Response, ECF No. 47. The Court has reviewed the F&R and the record and finds no error. The F&R, ECF No. 44, is therefore ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 24, are GRANTED. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly.
It is so ORDERED