Marshall v. Oregon Department of Correction

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

GEORGE LEE MARSHALL, JR., Case No. 3:20 cv 00146-CL ORDER Plaintiff, v.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants, _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge.

Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has filed his Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) (Doc. 36) recommending that defendants Kate Brown and Oregon Department of Corrections’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) should be granted. This matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

No objections were 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., 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, 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, 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).

The Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke’s F&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the F&R (Doc. 36) in its entirety. Defendants Kate Brown and Oregon Department of Corrections' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 12th day January, 2021.

____________/s_/_A_n__n_ A__ik__e_n__________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge