(PS) Mays v. State of California

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION

ROBERT DENVER MAYS, Case No. 1:20 cv 01287-CL ORDER Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF OREGON,

Defendants.

AIKEN, Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (Doc. 8) on October 14, 2020. 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. The order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim on August 17, 2020 (Doc. 6) is granted. Accordingly, I adopt Judge Mark Clarke’s F&R (Doc. 8). 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