DeRaedt v. La Clinica

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

CHARLES DeRAEDT, Case No. 1:24-cv-01844-CL

Plaintiff, ORDER v. LA CLINICA, et al., 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 11, 2025, in which he recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 29), deny Plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel, and dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice. F&R, ECF No. 40. 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. 40. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 29) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel is DENIED. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 27), and this action as a whole, is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 7th day of October 2025.

s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him) United States District Judge