PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TECHNICAL SECURITY 

INTEGRATION, INC., a Washington 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania 

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-cv-01895-SB

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and 

Recommendation in this case on May 27, 2015. Dkt. 29. Judge Beckerman recommended that 

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings (Dkt. 9) be denied. 

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)(C). 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). 

Case 3:14-cv-01895-SB Document 36 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 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.”

Defendant timely filed objections (Dkt. 32) to which Plaintiff responded (Dkt. 34). The 

Court has reviewed de novo Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, as well as 

Defendant’s objections, Plaintiffs’ response, and the underlying briefing in this case. The Court 

agrees with Judge Beckerman’s reasoning and adopts the Findings and Recommendation.

For those portions of Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation to which neither 

party has objected, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and 

reviews those matters for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-01895-SB Document 36 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendations. Dkt. 29. 

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings (Dkt. 9) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of July, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01895-SB Document 36 Filed 07/30/15 Page 3 of 3