Rasberry v. South Coast Interagency Narcotics Team
Rasberry v. South Coast Interagency Narcotics Team
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
JACKIE ERWIN RASBERRY II, Case No. 6:19-cv-02097-MK OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTH COAST INTERAGENCY NARCOTICS TEAM, and COOS COUNTY,
Defendants.
AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 7) on July 2, 2020. The matter is now before me. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 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 determination.” 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, 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 Kasubhai’s F&R (doc. 7). This action is DISMISSED and a judgment shall be entered.
Dated this _2_0_t_h_ day of July 2020. ________/_s_/A__n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n_______ Ann Aiken United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown