Regional Local Union Nos. 846 And 847, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Afl-Cio, and Regional District Council Welfare Plan and Trust v. Triton Steel, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

REGIONAL LOCAL UNION NOS. 846 Case No. 3:24-cv-2072-JR and 847, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Workers, AFL-CIO; et al.; RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRITON STEEL, LLC,

Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on September 16, 2025. The Court previously entered partial default judgment in this case for damages from January 2020 through December 2022. Judge Russo recommended that this Court grant Plaintiffs’ second motion for default judgment for amounts due calculated from Plaintiffs’ audit of payroll contributions from January 2023 through December 2024. Defendant has not appeared in this action. No party has filed objections. 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 objects 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). If no party objects, 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.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court must review de novo magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but not otherwise”). 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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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, the Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory

Committee and reviews Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. The Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 24. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Default Judgment, ECF 21. The Court shall enter the supplemental default judgment concurrently herewith. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 8th day of October, 2025. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge