Justin Kellam v. Bandon Dunes L.P.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

JUSTIN KELLAM, Case No. 6:25-cv-00686-AP

Plaintiff, ORDER v. BANDON DUNES L.P, Defendant.

KASUBHAI, United States District Judge: This matter is before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Potter issued a Findings and Recommendation on July 14, 2026, in which she recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 23). F&R, ECF No. 34. When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the district court has no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the district court is not precluded from sua sponte review in such circumstances, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985), and the Advisory Committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) recommend that the court should review for “clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Here, no party timely objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the record and finds no error. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Potter’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 34. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) is therefore GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 3rd day of August 2026. Tufte fea MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him) United States District Judge

Page 2 — ORDER