Johnson v. Peters

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PENDLETON DIVISION

WILLIE L. JOHNSON, Case No. 2:19 cv 01290-MK ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

COLETTE PETERS, BRAD CAIN, CHRISTOPHER THOMSON,

Defendants, _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has filed his Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) (Doc. 21) recommending that defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) should be granted. This matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections were timely filed. Although this relieves me of my obligation to perform a de novo review, I retain the obligation to “make an informed, 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, the Court 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). The Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai’s F&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the F&R (Doc. 21) in its entirety. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) is granted and this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 12th day of January, 2021.

___________/_s_/A__n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n___________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge