Jacy Wasoski v. Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc., a Utah Corporation, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION

JACY WASOSKI, an individual, No. 1:25-cv-01987-CL

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

BONNEVILLE BILLING AND COLLECTIONS, INC., a Utah Corporation, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. Before the Court is a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke, ECF No. 17. Judge Clarke recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 7, be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; that the case be REMANDED to state court; and that Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees associated with the Motion to Remand be DENIED. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court 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). If a party files objections 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). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, 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.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.”

Here, no objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record and the F&R and finds no error. The F&R, ECF No. 17, is ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to state court. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this _2__5_th___ day of February 2026.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge