Darby v. Hicks

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION

GARY DEAN DARBY,

Plaintiff, No. 1:24-cv-00923-CL

v. ORDER

WALLY HICKS, et al.

Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke. ECF No. 35. Judge Clarke recommends that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 14, 25, be granted and the case dismissed with prejudice. 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections 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). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, 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.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the

district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.” In this case, Plaintiff has filed a series of documents, ECF No. 37, 38, 39, 41, which the Court construes collectively as Plaintiff’s Objections to the F&R. The County Defendants have filed a Response indicating that they will rely on the F&R

and the underlying briefing and will not separately respond to Plaintiff’s Objections. ECF No. 40. The Court has reviewed the F&R, the filings, and the record and finds no error. The F&R, ECF No. 35, is ADOPTED and Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 14, 25, are GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _9_t_h__ day of October 2024.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge