Opinion
3:20-cv-2143-JR
08-27-2021
MARLIN ARD, Plaintiff, v. OREGON STATE BAR, COURTNEY DIPPLE, MERRY ANN MOORE, and ROB CORRIGAN, Defendants.
ORDER
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on August 11, 2021. ECF 37. Judge Russo recommended that this Court grant Defendants Merry Ann Moore and Rob Corrigan's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and deny Defendants' Motion for Imposition of Sanctions. 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 an objection 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) 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, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 37. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF 32) and DENIES Defendants' Motion for Imposition of Sanctions (ECF 34). The Court awards Defendants Ms. Moore and Mr. Morrigan $9, 976 in attorney's fees and $54.22 in costs, for a total award of $10, 030.22.
IT IS SO ORDERED.