IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CHRISTIAN P.,1 Case No. 3:18-cv-01375-CL OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 34) on November 13, 2020. The matter is now before me. See

(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.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Reyna- Tapia,

, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Magistrates Act does

1 In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party in this case. Where applicable, this opinion uses the same designation for a non-governmental party's immediate family member. 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 file of this case, I find no clear error.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that I ADOPT Judge Clarke’s F&R (doc. 34). Dated this _3_rd_ day of December 2020.

________/_s_/A__n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n_______ Ann Aiken United States District Judge