IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

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

Plaintiff,

v.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; KATE BROWN; STUART YOUNG; ROGER HAEFER; S. WATSON; DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 45) on April 22, 2021. 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 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 Mark Clarke’s F&R (doc. 45). Dated this 11th day of May, 2021.

___________/s_/_A_n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n_________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge