Biggs v. City of St. Paul et al

Filing 98

ORDER: The Court adopts the F&R 96 in it's entirely. Accordingly, defendants' Motion to Dismiss 78 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as outlined in the F&R. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order in which to file an amended complaint. Signed on 5/26/2020 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Case 6:18-cv-00506-MK

Document 98

Filed 05/26/20

Page 1 of 2

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

LORRIE BIGGS,

Case No. 6:18-cv-00506-MK
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. PAUL, an Oregon
Municipal Corporation; KIMBALL
WALLIS, and Individual; and LAURA
SCHROEDER, an Individual,
Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Magistrate

Judge

Mustafa

Kasubhai

has

filed

his

Findings

and

Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 96) recommending that defendant’s motion to
dismiss (doc. 78) be granted in part and denied in part. This case is now before me.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
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,

Page 1 – ORDER

Case 6:18-cv-00506-MK

Document 98

Filed 05/26/20

Page 2 of 2

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 banc). 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 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 record of this case, the Court finds no error in Judge
Kasubhai’s F&R.

Thus, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 96) in it’s entirely.

Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 78) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as outlined in the F&R. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date
of this Order in which to file an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26th
Dated this ____ day of May, 2020.

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

Page 2 – ORDER