Richardson v. Williams et al, No. 3:2010cv01288 - Document 38 (D. Or. 2011)
Court Description: Opinion and Order - Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation 36 . This case is dismissed and all pending motions are denied as moot. Signed on 12/7/2011 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Richardson v. Williams et al Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ANTHONY J. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. No. 10-1288-PK OPINION AND ORDER MAX WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants. Anthony J. Richardson 12735420 EOCI 2500 Westgate Pendleton, Oregon 97801 Pro se Andrew D. Hallman State of Oregon Department of Justice Trial Division 1162 Court Street, NE Salem, Oregon 97301 Attorney for defendants SIMON, District Judge: On November 4, 2011, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak filed Findings and Recommendations in this case (doc. # 36). Judge Papak recommended that the defendants’ Opinion and Order Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com motion to dismiss (doc. # 13) be granted. No objections have been filed. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’ 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, however, no objections are filed, the Magistrates Act does not prescribe any standard of review. In such cases, “[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Magistrates Act] intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report[.]” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but not otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates 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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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.” No objections having been made, the court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s findings and recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Opinion and Order Page 2 Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation (doc. # 36). This case is dismissed and all pending motions are denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 7th day of December, 2011. /s/ Opinion and Order Page 3 Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
