Filed: Feb. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2012
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge. On December 14, 2011, Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel filed Findings and Recommendations in this case (doc. # 39). Judge Hubel recommended that Plaintiff be awarded attorney's fees and nontaxable expenses in the amount of $7,059.46. No objections have been filed. 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." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). If a party file
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge. On December 14, 2011, Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel filed Findings and Recommendations in this case (doc. # 39). Judge Hubel recommended that Plaintiff be awarded attorney's fees and nontaxable expenses in the amount of $7,059.46. No objections have been filed. 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." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). If a party files..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge.
On December 14, 2011, Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel filed Findings and Recommendations in this case (doc. # 39). Judge Hubel recommended that Plaintiff be awarded attorney's fees and nontaxable expenses in the amount of $7,059.46. No objections have been filed.
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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate'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, however, no objections are filed, the Magistrates Act does not prescribe any standard of review. In such cases, "[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Magistrates Act] intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report[.]" Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court must review de novo magistrate's findings and recommendations if objection is made, "but not otherwise").
Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates 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's findings and recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record."
No objections having been made, the court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Hubel's findings and recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (docket # 39). Plaintiff is awarded $7,059.46 in attorney's fees and nontaxable expenses.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
