IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

LEE KOCH Case No. 6:18-cv-00507-MK ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ST. PAUL, an Oregon Municipal Corporation; KIMBALL WALLIS, and Individual; and LAURA SCHROEDER, an Individual,

Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 106) recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 88) be granted in part and denied in part. This case is now before me. See

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

, 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,

, *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 record of this case, the Court finds no error in Judge Kasubhai’s F&R. Thus, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 106) in it’s entirely. Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 88) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as outlined in the F&R. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order in which to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 2_6__th_ day of May, 2020.

_______/_s_/A__n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n_____ Ann Aiken United States District Judge