PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

NOAH SHERMAN SCHRODER,

Petitioner,

v.

MARION FEATHER,

Respondent.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00134-ST

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation

in this case on April 21, 2015. Dkt. 10. Judge Stewart recommended that the Court deny the 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Noah Sherman Schroder (“Petitioner”), Dkt. 1, and 

enter a judgment dismissing this case with prejudice.

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 recommendation, “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 3:15-cv-00134-ST Document 14 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – ORDER

For those portions of a magistrate’s findings and recommendation 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[.]”); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (the court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and 

recommendation if objection is made, “but not otherwise”). Although in the absence of 

objections no review is required, the Magistrates 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 recommendation for “clear error on 

the face of the record.”

Petitioner timely filed an objection. Dkt. 13. Petitioner argues that Judge Stewart’s 

finding that there was “ample evidence” that Petitioner refused to take a breathalyzer test was 

erroneous. The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of Judge Stewart’s Findings and 

Recommendation to which Petitioner has objected, as well as Petitioner’s objections. The Court 

agrees with Judge Stewart’s reasoning and conclusion and ADOPTS those portions of the 

Findings and Recommendation.

For those portions of Judge Stewart’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 3:15-cv-00134-ST Document 14 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – ORDER

The Court ADOPTS Judge Stewart’s Findings and Recommendation. Dkt. 10. The Court 

DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Dkt. 1, and DISMISSES this case with 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 28th day of May, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00134-ST Document 14 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 3