Rodriguez v. State of Oregon ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION MARTIN RODRIGUEZ; and BRITNI Case No. 6:23 cv 01863-MK RODRIGUEZ , ORDER Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF OREGON; SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARION COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; MARION COUNTY JUSTICE COURT; MARION COUNTY; and CITY OF SALEM, Defendants. Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 61) on May 16, 2024. 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 T. Kasubhai’s F&R (doc. 61). Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant State of Oregon are DISMISSED with prejudice. Dated this 4th day of June, 2024. _________/s/ Ann Aiken________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge