Betsy Goren, on behalf of the Estate of Marjorie Goren v. SMA Hub, Inc.; Hub Business Trust; NV Partners, LLC; Jonathan Walker; and Northwest Bank

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BETSY GOREN, on behalf of the Estate of Case No. 3:24-cv-580-JR Marjorie Goren, ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

SMA HUB, INC.; HUB BUSINESS TRUST; NV PARTNERS, LLC; JONATHAN WALKER; and NORTHWEST BANK,

Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on March 24, 2026. Judge Russo recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. 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). 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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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, the Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory

Committee and reviews Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. The Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF79. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, ECF 78. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 22nd day of April, 2026. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge