Opinion
1:21-cv-00269-CL
02-15-2022
HSCP OREGON, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
AIKEN, DISTRICT JUDGE.
This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke on October 27, 2021. ECF No. 29. Judge Clarke recommends that Plaintiffs' Petition for Return of Property, ECF No. 1, be DENIED and this case be DISMISSED.
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, Plaintiffs have filed Objections, ECF No. 33, and Defendants have filed a Response to Plaintiffs' Objections, ECF No. 34. The Court has reviewed the filings and the record and finds no error. The F&R is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs' Petition for Return of Property is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly.
It is so ORDERED.