Denton v. Shriners Hospital for Children

D. Oregon

Denton v. Shriners Hospital for Children

DecidedMarch 12, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-00826

StatusUnknown

This text of Denton v. Shriners Hospital for Children (Denton v. Shriners Hospital for Children) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Denton v. Shriners Hospital for Children, (D. Or. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LAURA DENTON, Case No. 3:23-cv-826-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v.

SHRINERS HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN,

Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on February 8, 2024. Judge Russo recommended that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 5). 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, this 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. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF 14). The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 8) and DISMISSES this case without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 12th day of March, 2024. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LAURA DENTON, Case No. 3:23-cv-826-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v.

SHRINERS HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN,

Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on February 8, 2024. Judge Russo recommended that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 5). 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, this 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. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF 14). The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 8) and DISMISSES this case without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 12th day of March, 2024. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Denton v. Shriners Hospital for Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denton-v-shriners-hospital-for-children-ord-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack