PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ERIC FLORES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION,

 Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-01948-AC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation 

(“F&R”) in this case on October 22, 2015. Dkt. 9. Judge Acosta recommended that the Court 

dismiss Plaintiff Eric Flores’s (“Flores”) “Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of the First 

Amendment” (Dkt. 2) sua sponte as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Judge 

Acosta further recommended that Flores’s in forma pauperis status be withdrawn and that 

Flores’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 3) and Motion to Transfer to Multidistrict Litigation 

(Dkt. 4) be denied as moot. In making this recommendation, Judge Acosta considered a PACER 

search showing that Flores has filed more than one action asserting the same claims and Flores’s 

Case 3:15-cv-01948-AC Document 15 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

statement that Flores has filed more than fifty identical actions in more than fifty district courts 

(Dkt. 4 at 1). Flores listed one address in all his court filings. A copy of the F&R was mailed to 

Flores at that address. The copy was returned as undeliverable. Dkt. 14. 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 Acosta’s F&R for clear error on the face of the record. No such 

error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s F&R, Dkt. 9. Flores’s 

Case 3:15-cv-01948-AC Document 15 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER 

Petition (Dkt. 2) is dismissed. Flores’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 3) and Motion to 

Transfer to Multidistrict Litigation (Dkt. 4) are denied as moot. The Court further finds that any 

appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status 

is revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 18th day of November, 2015. 

 /s/ Michael H. Simon 

Michael H. Simon 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01948-AC Document 15 Filed 11/18/15 Page 3 of 3