PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

THOMAS JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF HILLSBORO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-1934-ST

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

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

in this case on August 28, 2015. Dkt. 27. Judge Stewart recommended that the Washington 

County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 17) be DENIED as to the § 1983 claim against 

Deputy Dunn and GRANTED as to the negligence claim against Washington County with leave 

to replead. Judge Stewart further recommended that Defendants City of Hillsboro, Officer Pace 

and Officer McCarver’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 19) should be: (1) DENIED as to the § 1983 

claim against Officers McCarver and Pace based on the initial detention and length of detention, 

but GRANTED as to the claim based on an unreasonable search with leave to replead; 

(2) DENIED as to the false imprisonment claim against the City of Hillsboro; and 

(3) GRANTED as to the negligence claim with leave to replead.

Case 3:14-cv-01934-YY Document 31 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – ORDER

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). 

Plaintiff timely filed an objection. Dkt. 29. Plaintiff objects and requests that he be 

allowed to replead his “wrongful seizure” claim “absent a search component.” Plaintiff’s 

objection is puzzling, because Judge Stewart only recommended granting Defendants’ motions 

with respect to the alleged unlawful search and did not recommend granting Defendants’ 

motions with respect to Plaintiff’s alleged unlawful seizure. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim that his 

person was wrongfully seized survives the motions to dismiss. Nonetheless, if Plaintiff wishes to 

file an amended complaint to provide further factual detail relating to his alleged unlawful 

seizure, Plaintiff may request leave from Judge Stewart.

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

Recommendation to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court agrees with Judge Stewart’s 

reasoning regarding Plaintiff’s alleged unlawful search, seizure, and detention and ADOPTS 

those portions of the Findings and Recommendation.

For those portions of a magistrate’s findings and recommendations 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 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 

Case 3:14-cv-01934-YY Document 31 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – ORDER

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 

recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

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.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Judge Stewart’s Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 27. The 

Washington County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 17) is DENIED as to the § 1983 claim 

against Deputy Dunn and GRANTED as to the negligence claim against Washington County,

with leave to replead. Defendants City of Hillsboro, Officer Pace and Officer McCarver’s 

Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 19) is: (1) DENIED as to the § 1983 claims against Officers McCarver 

and Pace based on the seizure and detention of Plaintiff’s person, but GRANTED as to the claim 

based on an unreasonable search, with leave to replead; (2) DENIED as to the false 

imprisonment claim against the City of Hillsboro; and (3) GRANTED as to the negligence claim,

with leave to replead.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01934-YY Document 31 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 3