Stanke v. Oregon Social Learning Center

Filing 9

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 6 . Signed on 11/30/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

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

TIMOTHY PAUL STANKE,

Case No. 6:17 CV 00937-TC
ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
OREGON SOCIAL LEARNING CENTER,
Defendant.

AIKEN, Judge:
Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 6) on
September 19, 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 nova 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, SOl F.2d
196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Vann, S3S U.S. SS, 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 Coffin's F&R (doc. 6).
Dated thisln_'ij}y of November, 2017.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER