Valeriy Galkovski v. Staci Carney

D. Oregon

Valeriy Galkovski v. Staci Carney

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided June 22, 2026·No. 3:26-cv-00546·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

VALERIY GALKOVSKI, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00546-AR

Plaintiff, v. ORDER STACI CARNEY,

Defendant.

Adrienne Nelson, District Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued a findings and recommendation (“F&R”) in this action on May 28, 2026, ECF 8. The F&R recommends that this action should be remanded to state court and terminated accordingly. F&R 5. No party has filed objections, which were due by June 11, 2026. See id. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 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). No standard of review is prescribed for portions for the report for which no objections are filed, and no review is required in the absence of objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 382 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge is not, however, 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”). Because no party in this case has made objections to the F&R, the Court reviews the F&R for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ADOPTS the F&R, ECF 8. This action is REMANDED to state court and TERMINATED accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2026.

Adrienne Nelson 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

VALERIY GALKOVSKI, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00546-AR

Plaintiff, v. ORDER STACI CARNEY,

Defendant.

Adrienne Nelson, District Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead issued a findings and recommendation (“F&R”) in this action on May 28, 2026, ECF 8. The F&R recommends that this action should be remanded to state court and terminated accordingly. F&R 5. No party has filed objections, which were due by June 11, 2026. See id. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 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). No standard of review is prescribed for portions for the report for which no objections are filed, and no review is required in the absence of objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 382 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge is not, however, 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”). Because no party in this case has made objections to the F&R, the Court reviews the F&R for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ADOPTS the F&R, ECF 8. This action is REMANDED to state court and TERMINATED accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2026.

Adrienne Nelson United States District Judge

Valeriy Galkovski v. Staci Carney, (D. Or. 2026).

Pincite

Valeriy Galkovski v. Staci Carney (Valeriy Galkovski v. Staci Carney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related