INT HEU NITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T FORT HED ISTROIFCO TR EGON MEDFORDDI VISION

RONALSDA TIESMHR IT, CasNeo1 .: 20-cv-00220- OPINIAONND O RDER Plaintiff, vs. FEDERBAULR EAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. AIKEDNi,s tJruidcgte : MagisJturdaMgtaeer Dk. C larkeh iFfisil neddia nngRdse o cmmendation ("F&(Rd"o4)co) .n F ebru1a32r,0y 2 T0h.me a ttinesor bw e fomree.S e 2e8 U .S§. C. 636F(ebRd)..C; i Pv.7. 2 N.o objheacvbteei etonin msfie lleyAd l.t hotuhrgieshl ieves meo mfy o bligtaopt eirofoanrd men ovroe viIre ewt,ta hioenb ligtao"t miaoaknne informfiendad,le termiBnraitvti.Sto i mnVi.a "l lUenyi fSicehDd.i s7t0.F8,. 24d5 2, 45(49 Ctih1r 9.8 o3v)e,r rounol tehdge rro unUdnsi,tS etda tve.Rs e yna-T3a2p8i a,

F.31d1 1141,2 1(-92Ct2ih 2r 0.0 (3e)bn a nTeh)Me.a gistArcdatot enesoss t p ecaify standoafrre dv iiencw a swehse nroeo bjecatrifeoi nlRsea dyv. .A str2u0e1,WL2 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,

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

, 64 n.6 (2002) (stating that, “[i]n 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, I find no clear error. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that I ADOPT Judge Clarke’s F&R (doc. 4). Dated this ay of March 2020.

Ossse Ober Ann Aiken United States District Judge

Page 2— OPINION AND ORDER