MacCartney v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C.

D. Oregon

MacCartney v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C.

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided October 27, 2021·No. 3:18-cv-00568·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ERIC MACCARTNEY and LUANNE Case No. 3-18-cv-568-AC MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others, ORDER

Plaintiffs,

v.

GORDON, AYLWORTH, & TAMI, P.C., and VISION INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE, LLC,

Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on October 12, 2021. ECF 92. Judge Acosta recommended that the Court grant the unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Certification (ECF 83). No party has filed an objection. 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 files an objection 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).

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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 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, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 92. The Court grants the Motion for

Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Certification (ECF 83). IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 27th day of October, 2021.

/s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon 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

ERIC MACCARTNEY and LUANNE Case No. 3-18-cv-568-AC MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others, ORDER

Plaintiffs,

v.

GORDON, AYLWORTH, & TAMI, P.C., and VISION INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE, LLC,

Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on October 12, 2021. ECF 92. Judge Acosta recommended that the Court grant the unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Certification (ECF 83). No party has filed an objection. 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 files an objection 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).

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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 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, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 92. The Court grants the Motion for

Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Certification (ECF 83). IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 27th day of October, 2021.

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

MacCartney v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C., (D. Or. 2021).

Pincite

MacCartney v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C. (MacCartney v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related