PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ROY PETERSON, individually, and 

CAROLYN PETERSON, individually, and 

ROY AND CAROLYN PETERSON, as 

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GRANT COUNTY, a municipal subdivision 

of the State of Oregon; BOYD BRITTON,

individually, as trustee of the Monument Rural 

Fire District, and as County Commissioner for 

Grant County; SCOTT MYERS, individually, 

as trustee of the Monument Rural Fire, District, 

and as County Commissioner for Grant 

County; MONUMENT RURAL FIRE 

DISTRICT, a municipal subdivision of the 

State of Oregon; JERRY COWGER,

individually and as a director of Monument 

Rural Fire District; BRUCE STRANGE,

individually and as a director of Monument 

Rural Fire District; LEON SKILES,

individually and as a director of Monument 

Rural Fire District; JEREMY BOYER,

individually and as Fire Chief of the City of 

Monument Fire Department and as Fire Chief 

of the Monument Rural Fire District; the CITY 

OF MONUMENT, a municipal subdivision of 

the State of Oregon; JOHN DOES 1-10; and 

JANE DOES 1-5,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-216-HL

ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-00216-HL Document 93 Filed 04/16/24 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Hallman issued Findings and Recommendation

in this case on March 15, 2024. Judge Hallman recommended that this Court grant Defendants’ 

motions for sanctions, dismiss this case with prejudice, and deny all other pending motions as 

moot. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (Act), a 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 objects 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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 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 Judge Hallman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

Case 2:15-cv-00216-HL Document 93 Filed 04/16/24 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – ORDER

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hallman’s 

Findings and Recommendation, ECF 91. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions for sanctions 

(ECF 69, 71, 75, 76), and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. The Court DENIES AS MOOT 

all other pending motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 16th day of April, 2024.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00216-HL Document 93 Filed 04/16/24 Page 3 of 3