Filed: Jan. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL H. SIMON , District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on December 13, 2017. ECF 141. Judge Beckerman recommended that the Samaritan Defendants' motion for sanctions (ECF 121) be denied, as well as Plaintiffs' request for sanctions. 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
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL H. SIMON , District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on December 13, 2017. ECF 141. Judge Beckerman recommended that the Samaritan Defendants' motion for sanctions (ECF 121) be denied, as well as Plaintiffs' request for sanctions. 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(..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on December 13, 2017. ECF 141. Judge Beckerman recommended that the Samaritan Defendants' motion for sanctions (ECF 121) be denied, as well as Plaintiffs' request for sanctions.
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 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).
For those portions of a magistrate'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."); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed," the Court review the magistrate's recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record."
No party filed any objection to Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation. The Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews the Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 141. The Samaritan Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (ECF 121) is DENIED and Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
