Opinion
Case No. 3:19-cv-00077-MK
03-26-2019
JOSEPH RUDOLPH PORCHE, Petitioner, v. JOSIAS SALAZAR, WARDEN, Respondent.
ORDER
:
Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 4) on March 5, 2019 recommending that the Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1). This case is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
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 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, 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 and Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's order, I find no clear error. Thus, I adopt Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's F&R (doc. 4) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of March, 2019.
/s/_________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge