Pusateri v. Gibbs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION MATTHEW PUSATERI, Case No. 1:20 cv 01021-CL

ORDER Plaintiff, v. DENNIS GIBBS; EARL PERRY; KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON; UNNAMED KLAMATH COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES.

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 15) on January 28, 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 Mark Clarke’s F&R (doc. 15).

Dated this 16th day of February, 2021.

____________/s_/_A_n_n_ _A_i_k_en_________

Ann Aiken United States District Judge