Coos Bay RV Investments, LLC v. Wheelhaus Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

COOS BAY RV INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Case No. 3:21-cv-448-AC Delaware Limited Liability Company, ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

WEELHAUS, INC., a Wyoming Corporation, and JAMIE MACKAY, an individual,

Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on February 3, 2022. Judge Acosta recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and grant Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs. 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 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 Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 35. The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF 28). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs (ECF 29). The Court awards $20,185.25 in attorney’s fees and $864.50 in costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 18th day of February, 2022. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge