Gross v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 40

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 39 . Denying Motion to Dismiss 24 . Signed on 1/12/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TI-IE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION EDWARD GROSS, Case No. 1: 17-cv-00828-CL ORDER Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 39) on 12/5/2017. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. No objections have been timely filed. Although this relieves me of my obligation to perfo1m a de nova review, I retain the obligation to "make an info1med, final decision." 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 bane). The Magistrates Act does not specify a standard of review in cases where no objections are filed. Ray v. As/rue, 2012 WL 1598239, *1 (D. Or. May 7, 2012). Following the recommendation of the Rules Advisory Page 1 - ORDER 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. Accordingly, I adopt Judge Clarke's F&R (doc. 39) in its entirety. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, in the altemative, for a transfer of venue (doc. 24) is DENIED. Dated this /cl-i day of January 2015. ~~ AnnAiken United States District Judge Page 2 - ORDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?