Oslund v. Kelly et al

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER: I ADOPT Judge Clarke's F&R 23 . Signed on 2/28/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

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

JANN RAYlVIOND OSLUND,

Case No. 6:18-cv-00021-CL
OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
BRANDON KELLY; OREGON BOARD
OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON
SUPERVISION,
Respondents.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge l\!Iark D. Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation
("F&R") (doc. 23) on January 30, 2019. 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

Page 1- OPINION AND ORDER

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 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 Clarke's F&R
(doc. 23).

~
Dated this J_,~ day of February 2019.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER