IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

GREGORY L.,} Case No. 1:18-cv-01608-MK ORDER Plaintiff, vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has filed his Findings and Recommendation (CF&R’) (doc. 22) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED. This case is now before me. See

(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). □

! In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party or parties in this case. Where applicable, this opinion uses the same designation for a non-governmental party's immediate family member. PAGE 1-ORDER

No objections have been timely filed. Although this relieves me of my obligation to perform a de novo review, I retain the obligation to “make an informed, final decision.” Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Magistrates Act does not specify a standard of review in cases where no objections are filed. Ray v. Astrue,

, *1 (D. Or. May 7, 2012). Following the recommendation of the Rules Advisory Committee, I review the F&R for “clear error on the face of the record[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (1983) (citing Campbell v. United States District Court,

(9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Vonn,

, 64 n.6 (2002) (stating that, “[i]Jn the absence of a clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes provide a reliable source of insight into the meaning of’ a federal rule). Having reviewed the file of this case and Magistrate Judge Clarke’s order, I find no clear error. Thus, I adopt Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s F&R (doc. 22) in its entirety. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner.is AFFIRMED, and this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated tid By of January, 2019. Chur Ben AnnAiken United States District Judge

PAGE 2-ORDER