Barton v. Bower et al

Page 1 – ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
DALE ALAN BARTON, 	No. 6:24-cv-00140-CL
Plaintiff, 	ORDER
v.
ANDREW L. BOWER, M.D.; MICHELLE
DAVIES; WARREN ROBERTS, M.D.;
and HEIDI MILER, sued jointly and
severally in their individual capacities,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”)
filed by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke, ECF No. 93. 	Judge Clarke recommends
that Defendant Dr. Bower’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 59, be GRANTED and that
the claims against him be DISMISSED.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections 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).
Case 6:24-cv-00140-CL Document 106 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 2

Page 2 – ORDER
For those portions of a magistrate judge’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.”). 	Although no review is required in the
absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the
district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The
Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely
objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the
face of the record.”
Here, Plaintiff filed Objections to the F&R twelve days after they were due.
See ECF No. 105. 	Although the Objections are untimely, the Court reviewed them
anyway and determined that they are not meritorious.
The F&R, ECF No. 93, is therefore ADOPTED and Defendant Dr. Bower’s
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 59, is GRANTED, as set forth in the F&R. 	The claims
against him are DISMISSED.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this _________ day of November 2025.
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge
14th
/s/Ann Aiken
Case 6:24-cv-00140-CL Document 106 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 2