Summary
finding that inmate's participation in prison apprenticeship program was work-related within the meaning of the IACA because inmate was paid, had defined work hours and responsibilities, and was not allowed to work on personal projects in the woodshop
Summary of this case from Jeffers v. United StatesOpinion
Case No. 3:18-cv-00431-JR
05-29-2019
STEVEN GRIMM, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES and RICHARD IVES, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Sheridan, Oregon, Defendants.
ORDER
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on April 25, 2019. ECF 44. Magistrate Judge Russo recommended that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. 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 files objections 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 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, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 44. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 31) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of May, 2019.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge