Opinion
Case No. 6:18-cv-01068-MK
09-27-2018
MID-VALLEY ORAL, MAXILLOFACIAL & IMPLANT SURGERY, P.C., an Oregon domestic professional corporation, Plaintiff, v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD, aka SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, a foreign corporation; THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation, aka THE HARTFORD; and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendants.
ORDER
:
Magistrate Judge Russo filed her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 9) on August 27, 2018. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. There are no objections to the F&R. 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. Astrne, 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 Russo's F&R (doc. 9).
Dated this 27th day of September 2018.
/s/_________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge