Mahler v. Steady Stream, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Oregon
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01833
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ROBERT EVANS MAHLER, Case No. 3:23-cv-01833-AR Plaintiff, v. ORDER STEADY STREAM, INC., MIZUMI BUFFET, JINDI OU, LUCY CHEN, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. Adrienne Nelson, District Judge United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued a Findings and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on September 22, 2025, recommending that (1) defendants' motion be granted as to all claims against defendant Jindi Ou; (2) defendants' motion be granted as to Claim 3 for discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") and Claim 5 for intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants; (3) defendants' motion be denied as to Claim 1 for negligence, Claim 2 for gross negligence, and Claim 4 for failure to accommodate under Title III of the ADA against defendants Steady Stream, Inc., Mizumi Buffet, and Lucy Chen; and (4) Doe defendants 1- 10 be dismissed from this case without prejudice. See Findings & Recommendation, ECF [52]. Objections, if any, were due October 6, 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 Armistead's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ADOPTS Judge Armistead's Findings and Recommendation, ECF [52]. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF [41], is GRANTED as to all claims against defendant Jindi Ou; is GRANTED as to Claim 3 and Claim 5 against all defendants; and is DENIED as to Claim 1, Claim 2, and Claim 4 against defendants Steady Stream, Inc., Mizumi Buffet, and Lucy Chen. Doe defendants 1-10 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 8th day of October, 2025. Adrienne Nelson United States District Judge