Jayda Johnson v. Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc.

D. Oregon

Jayda Johnson v. Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc.

DecidedDecember 5, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00801

StatusUnknown

This text of Jayda Johnson v. Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc. (Jayda Johnson v. Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc.) 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

Jayda Johnson v. Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc., (D. Or. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JAYDA JOHNSON, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00801-YY

Plaintiff, v. ORDER BONNEVILLE BILLING AND COLLECTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

Adrienne Nelson, District Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendations on November 3, 2025, recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF [14], be granted and plaintiff's case be dismissed with prejudice. Objections, if any, were due November 24, 2025, and no party has filed objections. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). A district court judge 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)(C). In the absence of objections, no review is required, and no standard of review is prescribed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nonetheless, a district court judge is not precluded from reviewing the report sua sponte under a de novo, or any other, standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154; Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017). Courts in this district have followed the Advisory Committee's recommendation that, when no timely objection is filed, findings and recommendations be reviewed for "clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment; see, e.g., Hayden v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1125, 1127 (D. Or. 2015) (following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviewing magistrate judge's findings and recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record"); Toohey v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. Health & Welfare Plan, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1224 (D. Or. 2009) (same). Because no party in this case has made objections, this Court reviews Judge You's Findings and Recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ADOPIS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF [26]. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF [14] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of December, 2025. /) a .

Adrienne Nelson 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

JAYDA JOHNSON, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00801-YY

Plaintiff, v. ORDER BONNEVILLE BILLING AND COLLECTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

Adrienne Nelson, District Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendations on November 3, 2025, recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF [14], be granted and plaintiff's case be dismissed with prejudice. Objections, if any, were due November 24, 2025, and no party has filed objections. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). A district court judge 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)(C). In the absence of objections, no review is required, and no standard of review is prescribed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nonetheless, a district court judge is not precluded from reviewing the report sua sponte under a de novo, or any other, standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154; Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017). Courts in this district have followed the Advisory Committee's recommendation that, when no timely objection is filed, findings and recommendations be reviewed for "clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment; see, e.g., Hayden v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1125, 1127 (D. Or. 2015) (following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviewing magistrate judge's findings and recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record"); Toohey v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. Health & Welfare Plan, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1224 (D. Or. 2009) (same). Because no party in this case has made objections, this Court reviews Judge You's Findings and Recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ADOPIS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF [26]. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF [14] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of December, 2025. /) a .

Adrienne Nelson United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jayda Johnson v. Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jayda-johnson-v-bonneville-billing-and-collections-inc-ord-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack