McFarland v. State of Oregon

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION KEVIN MARK MCFARLAND, 6:19-cv-01066-MK OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Vv.

STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF LANE, LANE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, PATRICIA PERLOW, and DEBORAH STOLL, Defendants.

AITKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 12) recommending that the Court GRANT plaintiffs Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (doc. 2) and Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel (doc. 9) and DISMISS, with prejudice, the claim against Deborah Stoll in her individual capacity. This case is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

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., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (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, 2012 WL 1598239, *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, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 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. 12) in its entirety.

Accordingly, the claim against Deborah Stoll in her. individual capacity is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs Application to Proceed IFP (doc 2) and Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel (doc. 9) are GRANTED IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated thisd Hy of January, 2020.

Che United States District Judge PAGE ORDER