Gerald S. v. Moda Health

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GERALD S. and V.S., Case No. 3:24-cv-426-YY

Plaintiffs, ORDER

v.

MODA HEALTH,

Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on July 31, 2025. Judge You recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss and supplemental motion to dismiss such that: the Court should deny the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (the “Parity Act”); deny the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for restitution; deny the motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party; and grant the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. 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, the Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. The Court ADOPTS Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF 41). The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 24) and Defendant’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (ECF 38). The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under § 1132(a)(1)(B) and the Parity Act, DENIES the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for restitution; DENIES the motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party; and GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 15th day of August, 2025.

/s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge