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

ANDRE BILODEAU, ROBERT BESSY, Case No. 1:21 cv 00766-CL AMBER MCNAB, GREG KILLINGSWORTH, ORDER TRAVIS GREINER, AND RONDA BJORK,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MEDFORD,

Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 73) on January 16, 2024. 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 1In the interest of privacy, this Findings and Recommendation uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party or pai1ies in this case.

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. 73). Dated this 4th day of April, 2024.

_________/s/ Ann Aiken________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge