IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LARRY S., Case No. 3:18-cv-00673-CL ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant, _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) (doc. 32) 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). No objections have been timely filed. This Court previously granted an extension of time in which to file objections (doc. 36) Objections were due by May 18, 2020. 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, the Court 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 and Magistrate Judge Clarke’s order, the Court find no clear error.

Thus, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Clarke’s F&R (doc. 32) in its entirety. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this action is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this _2_6_t_h day of May 2020.

___________/_s_/A__n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n___________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge