Jarrett v. Marion County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION TOREY JARRETT, an individual, Case No. 6:20 cv 01049-MK

ORDER Plaintiff, v. MARION COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 503, a labor organization; and MARION COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LOCAL 294, a labor organization,

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 30) on January 6, 2021. 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 Mustafa Kasubhai’s F&R (doc. 30).

Dated this _2_2_n_d__ day of January, 2021.

___________/_s/_A_n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n_________

Ann Aiken United States District Judge