Arnold Eaton v. Michael Reese, Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections; All Former Directors of the Oregon Department of Corrections; All Current and Former Administrators and Employees Within the Oregon Department of Corrections’ Offender Information and Sentencing Computation Unit; Michael Hsu, Chairperson of the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision; Kim Coons, Employee of the Oregon Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision; All Current and Former Members of the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision; and Washington County Sheriff Staff Responsible for Certifying Prisoner Time Served Credits

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ARNOLD EATON, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00818-YY

Plaintiff, v. ORDER MICHAEL REESE, Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections; ALL FORMER DIRECTORS OF THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ALL CURRENT AND FORMER ADMINISTRATORS AND EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’ OFFENDER INFORMATION AND SENTENCING COMPUTATION UNIT; MICHAEL HSU, Chairperson of the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision; KIM COONS, Employee of the Oregon Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision; ALL CURRENT AND FORMER MEMBERS OF THE OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION; and WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR CERTIFYING PRISONER TIME SERVED CREDITS,

Defendants.

Adrienne Nelson, District Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued a findings and recommendation in this case, ECF 35, on July 2, 2026. Judge You recommended that this Court grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF 26, and dismiss this case. No party has filed objections. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). A district court judge 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)(C). In the absence of objections, no review is required, and no standard of review is prescribed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nonetheless, a district court Judge is not precluded from reviewing the report sua sponte under a de novo standard or any other standard of review. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154; Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017). Courts in this district have followed the Advisory Committee’s recommendation that, when no timely objection is filed, findings and recommendations be reviewed for “clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment; see, e.g., Hayden v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1125, 1127 (D. Or. 2015) (following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviewing magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.”). Because no party in this case has made objections, this Court reviews Judge You’s findings and recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ADOPTS Judge You’s findings and recommendation, ECF 35. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF 26, is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. Judgment shall follow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 25th day of August, 2026. _

Adrienne Nelson United States District Judge