PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MATTHEW ALAN SMITH, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED PARCEL SEVICE INC., 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 3:14-cv-01681-PK 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Matthew Alan Smith, P.O. Box 350217, Westminster, CO 80035, pro se. 

Calvin L. Keith and Joanna T. Perini-Abbott, PERKINS COIE, LLP, 1120 NW Couch Street, 

10th Floor, Portland, OR 97209. Of Attorneys for Defendant. 

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation in this 

case on December 28, 2015. Dkt. 39. Judge Papak recommended that this Court grant Plaintiff 

Matthew Alan Smith’s (“Plaintiff” or “Smith”) Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 26), deny as 

moot Smith’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 27), and also deny as moot Defendant United Parcel Service 

Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “UPS”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 21). 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. 

Case 3:14-cv-01681-PK Document 42 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

§ 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 Papak’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face 

of the record. No such error is apparent. Although the decision does not rest on these grounds, 

the Court notes that Smith asserts that he will be able to comply with the Order to Show Cause 

(Dkt. 22-11) issued by the Tenth Circuit because an attorney has agreed to represent him. See

Dkt. 36 at 1. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation, 

Dkt. 39. Smith’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 26) is granted. Smith’s Motion to Stay 

(Dkt. 27) and UPS’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 21) are denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court is 

Case 3:14-cv-01681-PK Document 42 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER 

directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and 

to send a copy of this Order and Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation to that court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 25th day of January, 2016. 

 /s/ Michael H. Simon 

Michael H. Simon 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-01681-PK Document 42 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 3