David Nelson v. State of Oregon, Department of Administrative Services

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided July 22, 2026·No. 3:25-cv-00196·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DAVID NELSON, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00196-AR

Plaintiff, v. ORDER

STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,

Defendant.

Adrienne Nelson, District Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued Findings and Recommendation on February 26, 2026, recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied. Objections, if any, were due March 12, 2026, and no party has filed objections. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) 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, or any other, standard. 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 recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record”); Toohey v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. Health & Welfare Plan, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1224 (D. Or. 2009) (same). Because no party in this case has made objections, this Court reviews Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ADOPTS Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 19. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF 11, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 22nd day of July, 2026.

/ MU, □□□ Cyne 7 - } « g On Adrienne Nelson United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

David Nelson v. State of Oregon, Department of Administrative Services, (D. Or. 2026).

David Nelson v. State of Oregon, Department of Administrative Services (David Nelson v. State of Oregon, Department of Administrative Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Toohey v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION HEALTH & WELFARE
673 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (D. Oregon, 2009)
Kim Decker v. Nancy Berryhill
856 F.3d 659 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Hayden v. United States
147 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (D. Oregon, 2015)