Thompson v. Morrisey O'Donnell

PAGE 1 – ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
WAYNE CONRAD THOMPSON,
Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF NICOLE MORRISEY
O’DONNELL,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:26-cv-241-JE
ORDER
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on July 17, 2026. Judge Jelderks recommended that this Court deny Petitioner’s Urgent
Motion for Federal Injunction, ECF 15, and dismiss his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
ECF 1, because it is moot. 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 objects to a magistrate judge’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],
Case 3:26-cv-00241-JE Document 23 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

PAGE 2 – ORDER
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 judge’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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review
the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
No party having made objections, the Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews the Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the
record. No such error is apparent.
The Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderks’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 21. The Court
DENIES Petitioner’s Urgent Motion for Federal Injunction, ECF 15, and DISMISSES
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF 1, because it is moot.
The Court further finds that any appeal from this Order would be “frivolous” as that term
is used in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and thus would not be taken in “good faith” as that term is used
in the statute. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
in forma pauperis status should be revoked.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of October, 2026.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00241-JE Document 23 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2