Boggs v. Onity, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 29 ; Granting in Part Denying in Part 20 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed on 7/29/2022 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

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

JORDAN BOGGS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,

Case No. 6:21 cv 00842-MK
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
ONITY, INC.,
Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) (doc. 29) on July 12, 2022. 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 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
file of this case, I find no clear error.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that I ADOPT Judge Mustafa
Kasubhai’s F&R (doc. 29).
Dated this 29th day of July, 2022.

________/s/Ann Aiken_______
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge