Cunningham v. Stanfill

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

LISA CUNNINGHAM and FRANK Case No. 1:25-cv-01040-CL HUGHES, as Co-Personal Representatives of the ESTATE OF SPENCER MICHAEL ORDER HUGHES, Plaintiffs, v. JEFFREY STANFILL; JELD-WEN, INC.; TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE; and FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, Defendants.

KASUBHAI, United States District Judge: This matter is before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Clarke issued a Findings and Recommendation on September 8, 2025, in which he recommends that this Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 13); grant Defendants Truck Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon’s Motion to Join Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 17); and deny Defendant JELD-WEN’s Motion to Sever (ECF No. 3). F&R, ECF No. 23. When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the district court has no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the district court is not precluded from sua sponte review in such circumstances, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985), and the Advisory Committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) recommend that the court should review for “clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Here, no party timely objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the record and finds no error. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 23. Defendant JELD-WEN’s Motion to Sever (ECF No. 3) is therefore DENIED; Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED; and Defendants Truck Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insurance Exchange and Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon’s Motion to Join

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to Klamath County Circuit Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 3rd day of October 2025. s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him) United States District Judge