Myers v. Highlands At Vista Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

D. Oregon

Myers v. Highlands At Vista Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided September 23, 2022·No. 6:20-cv-00562·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

DOUGLAS MYERS; TERESA MYERS, Plaintiffs, No. 6:20-cv-00562-MK v. ORDER HIGHLANDS AT VISTA RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; KAY HENDERSON; DENNIS KINNEY; ROGER STOCKSTAD, Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai on September 8, 2022. ECF No. 52. Judge Kasubhai recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 38, be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, 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). If a party files objections 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). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s

report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.”

In this case, there are no objections and the Court has reviewed the F&R and finds no error. The F&R is therefore ADOPTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in the F&R. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _2_3_r_d_ day of September 2022. /s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN 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

EUGENE DIVISION

DOUGLAS MYERS; TERESA MYERS, Plaintiffs, No. 6:20-cv-00562-MK v. ORDER HIGHLANDS AT VISTA RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; KAY HENDERSON; DENNIS KINNEY; ROGER STOCKSTAD, Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai on September 8, 2022. ECF No. 52. Judge Kasubhai recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 38, be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, 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). If a party files objections 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). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s

report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.”

In this case, there are no objections and the Court has reviewed the F&R and finds no error. The F&R is therefore ADOPTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in the F&R. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _2_3_r_d_ day of September 2022. /s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge

Myers v. Highlands At Vista Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc., (D. Or. 2022).

Pincite

Myers v. Highlands At Vista Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc. (Myers v. Highlands At Vista Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related