Pusateri v. Gibbs et al

Filing 17

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 15 ; Granting Motion to Dismiss 14 . Signed on 2/16/2021 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Case 1:20-cv-01021-CL

Document 17

Filed 02/16/21

Page 1 of 2

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

MATTHEW PUSATERI,

Case No. 1:20 cv 01021-CL
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
DENNIS GIBBS; EARL PERRY;
KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON;
UNNAMED KLAMATH COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPUTIES.
Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) (doc. 15) on January 28, 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).
Magistrates Act does not

The

Case 1:20-cv-01021-CL

Document 17

Filed 02/16/21

Page 2 of 2

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 Mark
Clarke’s F&R (doc. 15).
Dated this 16th day of February, 2021.

______________________________
/s/Ann Aiken
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge