IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:25-cv-1384-HL
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
THOMAS BARNES,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Hallman issued Findings and Recommendation in this
case on February 9, 2026. Judge Hallman recommended that this Court grant the United States’
Motion for Default Judgment, ECF 7, and allow the United States to recover $80,405.00 in
damages and costs plus any post-judgment interest that may accrue. 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],
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 Hallman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent.
The Court ADOPTS Judge Hallman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 8. The Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and awards damages and costs in the amount
of $80,405.00 plus post-judgment interest.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 5th day of March, 2026.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.