Mason v. Armstrong

Filing 26

ORDER: I adopt Magistrate Judge Coffin's F&R 23 in its entirety. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Signed on 6/21/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

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

JOSHUA EDWARD MASON,

Case No. 6:17-cv-00845-TC

ORDER
Plaintiff,

v.
CARL ARMSTRONG OWNER/OPERATOR
SPOONY BAY LLC,
Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F &R") on
May 18. 2018 (doc. 23) recommending this action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute
and failure to comply with a court order. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
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 informed, 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.
PAGE I -ORDER

Ray v. Astrue, 2012 WL 1598239, *l (D. Or. May 7, 2012). Following the recommendation of
the Rules Advisory Committee, I review the F&R for "clear e1Tor 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 e1Tor.
Thus, I adopt Magistrate Judge Coffin's F&R (doc. 23) in its entirety. Accordingly, this
action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 21st day of June, 2018.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

PAGE2-0RDER