Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
June 21, 2018, Decided; June 21, 2018, Filed
Case No. 3:17-cv-1791-YY
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") in this case on May 7, 2018. ECF 38. Judge You recommended that the Court grant Defendant's motion to dismiss.
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 [*2] 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, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (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 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 judge's recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record."
BACKGROUNDRead The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103776 *; 2018 WL 3090199
DANIEL WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRED MEYER, INC., Defendant.
Subsequent History: Affirmed by, in part, Reversed by, in part, Remanded by Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8809 (9th Cir. Or., Mar. 20, 2020)
Prior History: Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92976 (D. Or., May 7, 2018)
disclosure, authorization, consumer report, argues, notice, recommendations, pre-adverse, consumer, job application, adverse action, violations, alleges, objects, procurement, documents, disclosure requirements, extraneous information, rights