PAGE 1 – ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PALMER EVENTS, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HYUNDAI HOPE ON WHEELS, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-02223-PK 

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

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

case on February 26, 2016. Dkt. 14. Judge Papak recommended that the Court deny Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss for improper venue, grant Defendant’s motion to transfer the case to the 

United States District Court for the Central District Court of California under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a), and deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as moot except to 

the extent Plaintiff concedes that it has failed to state a claim for its third cause of action, account 

stated (see Dkt. 9 at 6). 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 3:15-cv-02223-PK Document 16 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – 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. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Judge Papak’s 

Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 14. Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 3) is denied in part and 

granted in part. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied; Defendant’s motion to transfer the case 

to the United States District Court for the Central District of California is granted; and 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied as moot except to the extent 

that the motion pertains to Plaintiff’s third cause of action, which Plaintiff concedes should be 

dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this action to the 

Case 3:15-cv-02223-PK Document 16 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – ORDER 

United States District Court for the Central District of California and to send a copy of Judge 

Papak’s Findings and Recommendation and this Order to that court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 25nd day of March, 2016. 

 /s/ Michael H. Simon 

Michael H. Simon 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02223-PK Document 16 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 3