Campos v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 24 . Signed on 5/23/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

lJl£1)fORl/

DIVISION

DANIEL ANDREW CAMPOS, JR.,

Case No. 1: 17 CV 00374-JR
ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

AIKEN, Judge:
Magistrate Judge Russo filed her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 24) on
DATE. 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 nova review,
I retain the obligation to "make an informed, final determination." Britt v. Simi .Val!ey 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 bane). 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

'L
'

;

.1
·!''

'. '•

:.. ;,

I

J

··.
"•,

•,,'r

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. Vann, 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 Russo's F&R (doc. 24).

riA>

Dated this )J day of May, 2018.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER