Adkins v. City of Phoenix Police Department ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION NELDA ADKINS, JANEL SHOWERS, Case No. 1:20 cv 00361-CL MARLA SEESE, et al., ORDER Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT, JEFFREY PRICE, Defendants. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 29) on January 8, 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 Mark Clarke’s F&R (doc. 29). Dated this 25th day of January, 2021. ____________/s_/_A_n_n_ A__ik_e_n_________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge