Opinion
23-cv-260-HL
09-01-2023
KIMBERLY OWEN, Plaintiff, v. SVEN CEDRIC BUERKI and FANNY BUERKI, Defendants.
ORDER
Michael H. Simon United States District Judge
United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Hallman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on August 15, 2023. Judge Hallman recommended that this Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismiss this case with prejudice.
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 objects 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 Hallman's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hallman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 17. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF 10. Because Plaintiffs' claims are barred by Oregon's statute of limitations, the Court dismisses this case with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.