IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION

JESSICA MARIE HOLLAND, Case No. 1:18-cv-00576-CL ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant, _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has filed his Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) (Doc. 27) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and this case be remanded for further administrative procedures. This matter is now before me. See

(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections to the F&R 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, 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). The Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Clarke’s F&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the F&R (Doc. 27) in its entirety. The decision of the Commissioner

is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further administrative procedures consistent with the F&R. This action is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this _8_t_h_ day of September 2020.

__________/_s_/_A_n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n____________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge