From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blocker v. Universal Music Publ'g Grp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Apr 3, 2015
Case No. 3:14-cv-01650-SB (D. Or. Apr. 3, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 3:14-cv-01650-SB

04-03-2015

TYRONE BLOCKER, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING GROUP, Defendant.


ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on February 26, 2015. Dkt. 14. Judge Beckerman recommended that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 7) be dismissed with 30 days leave to replead. 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)(C). 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, however, 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."). Nor does the Act "preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. And 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." As no party has made objections, the 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.

The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation. Dkt. 14. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 7) is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Blocker v. Universal Music Publ'g Grp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Apr 3, 2015
Case No. 3:14-cv-01650-SB (D. Or. Apr. 3, 2015)
Case details for

Blocker v. Universal Music Publ'g Grp.

Case Details

Full title:TYRONE BLOCKER, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING GROUP, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Apr 3, 2015

Citations

Case No. 3:14-cv-01650-SB (D. Or. Apr. 3, 2015)