JOHN STENGER v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JOHN STENGER, Case No. 3:25-cv-00546-AP

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v.

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On August 13, 2026, Magistrate Judge Potter issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 30, recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF 16, and stay the case, pending the outcome of the arbitration of the underinsured motorist (“UIM”) claims. There were no objections to the F&R; however, on August 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification of Findings and Recommendation, ECF 32, requesting this Court “include a six (6) month deadline from the entry of the Court’s order granting defendant USAA’s motion to compel by which the arbitration is to be completed.” Id. at 2. Defendant filed its Response in Opposition to Motion for Clarification Findings & Recommendation, ECF 34, on September 8, 2026. Magistrate Judge Potter referred Plaintiff’s motion, ECF 32, to this Court alongside the F&R. ECF 33. Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, 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)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “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. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. This Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Potter’s F&R, ECF 30, GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF 16, and STAYS the case, pending the outcome of the

arbitration of the UIM claims. As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification of the Findings & Recommendation, ECF 32, this Court DECLINES to impose a deadline by which the arbitration is to be completed, but ORDERS the parties to confirm with the Court, within 14 days of this decision, that each party has picked its arbitrator and that the arbitrators are conferring to select the third, neutral arbitrator. Additionally, this Court ORDERS parties to submit a joint status report every sixty (60) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 8th day of September, 2026.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge