PAGE 1 – ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CASSIDY ALMQUIST, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SYNERGO, LLC, an Oregon limited liability 

company; SYNERGO, an Oregon corporation;

ASSOCIATION FOR CHALLENGE 

COURSE TECHNOLOGY, a Delaware nonprofit corporation, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-01281-SB 

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and 

Recommendation in this case on May 20, 2016. Dkt. 51. Judge Beckerman recommended that 

the Court deny Defendant Association for Challenge Course Technology’s (“ACCT”) motion to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Beckerman based her recommendation on, among 

other things, findings that ACCT directly targeted Oregon by certifying Oregon-based 

Defendants Synergo, LLC and Synergo (collectively “Synergo”) as a Professional Vendor 

Case 3:15-cv-01281-SB Document 53 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – ORDER 

Member (“PVM”), advertising Synergo as a PVM, and requiring Synergo to adhere to ACCT’s 

standards for challenge courses. 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’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’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’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 Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS 

Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 51. ACCT’s motion to dismiss for lack 

of personal jurisdiction is DENIED. 

Case 3:15-cv-01281-SB Document 53 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 9th day of June, 2016. 

 /s/ Michael H. Simon 

Michael H. Simon 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01281-SB Document 53 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 3