Ortega v. Hazel et al.
ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 53 . See, formal Order. Signed on 9/30/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case No. 6:15 CV 01598-SB
Magistrate Judge Beckerman filed her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 53)
on August 31, 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 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 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
Committee, I review the F&R for "clear error on the face of the record[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER
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 Beckerman's F&R (doc.
Dated this.JU day
United States District Judge
Page 2 - OPINION AND 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?