The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry v. The Hemp Grange

District Court, D. Oregon

The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry v. The Hemp Grange

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION

THE NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00600-CL ORDER OF PATRONS OF ORDER HUSBANDRY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE HEMP GRANGE and THOMAS DUBIEL,

Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 23) on August 23, 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 Clarke’s F&R (doc. 23). Dated this _1_6__th_ day of September 2021.

________/s_/_A_n_n__ A__ik_e_n________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown