Opinion
1:21 CV 01078-CL
05-27-2022
RICARDO ORDONEZ GREGORIO, GILBERTO GARCIA ORDONEZ, ANDRES ORDONEZ JIMENEZ, GABRIEL GREGORIO HERNANDEZ, JULIO CARDONA ORDONEZ, JOAQUIN ORDONEZ CARDONA, ALFREDO ORDONEZ CARDONA, ALICIA HERNANDEZ GREGORIO, ELMER ESCALANTE GREGORIO, ROGELIO ORDONEZ ANDRES, ISMAEL ORDONEZ ANDRES, GABRIEL GARCIA ORDONEZ, ANDRES SANTOS VELASQUEZ, CELESTINO HERNANDEZ CARDONA, JUAN ANDRES GOMEZ, ANDRES VELASQUEZ FABIAN, CEFERINO LEONEL GOMEZ, Plaintiffs, v. COLT JAMISON HANSEN, an individual WESTCOAST GROWERS, LLC., TOPSHELF HEMP, LLC., FIRE HEMP, LLC., Defendants.
ORDER
ANN AIKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 41) on May 10, 2022. 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. 41).