Gelly v. Safe Transportation, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Oregon
• Decided: July 5, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00844
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ASSON GELLY, Case No. 3:22-cv-844-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

SAFE TRANSPORTATION, INC., an Oregon corporation,

Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on June 2, 2023. Judge Beckerman recommended that this Court grant Plaintiff Asson Gelly’s (Gelly) motion to dismiss Defendant Safe Transportation Inc.’s (Safe) counterclaim, deny as moot Gelly’s motion to dismiss or strike the relief sought for the counterclaim, and grant Gelly’s motion to strike portions of Safe’s first and second affirmative defenses. 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 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 Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge

Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 24. The Court GRANTS Gelly’s motion to dismiss Safe’s counterclaim, DENIES AS MOOT Gelly’s motion to strike Safe’s relief sought for the counterclaim, and GRANTS Gelly’s motion to strike portions of Safe’s first and second affirmative defenses, ECF 9. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5th day of July, 2023. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge