Killa Bees Distribution LLC et al v. Left Coast Financial Solutions, Inc. et al

PAGE 1 – ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
KILLA BEES DISTRIBUTION LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LEFT COAST FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:23-cv-1629-JR
ORDER
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on October 14, 2025. Judge Russo recommended that this Court Grant Defendant
Nicholas Rupp’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the claims against him 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). 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).
Case 3:23-cv-01629-JR Document 103 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2

PAGE 2 – ORDER
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 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 Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent.
The Court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation, ECF 101. The Court GRANTS
Defendant Rupp’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 95. The Court dismisses the claims against
Defendant Rupp with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of October, 2025.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01629-JR Document 103 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2