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)

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. § 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