Jackson v. Gill

D. Oregon

Jackson v. Gill

DecidedMarch 31, 2021

Docket6:20-cv-00906

StatusUnknown

This text of Jackson v. Gill (Jackson v. Gill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. Gill, (D. Or. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

ERIC T. JACKSON, et al., Case No. 6:20 cv 000906-MK ORDER

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREGORY GILL, et al.,

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 41) on March 16, 2021. 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. 41). Dated this 31st day of March, 2021.

____________/s_/A__n_n_ A__ik_e_n_________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

ERIC T. JACKSON, et al., Case No. 6:20 cv 000906-MK ORDER

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREGORY GILL, et al.,

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 41) on March 16, 2021. 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. 41). Dated this 31st day of March, 2021.

____________/s_/A__n_n_ A__ik_e_n_________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jackson v. Gill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-gill-ord-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack