# Marshall v. Oregon Department of Correction

> District Court, D. Oregon · January 12, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10392796

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** January 12, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10392796

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

GEORGE LEE MARSHALL, JR., Case No. 3:20 cv 00146-CL
ORDER
Plaintiff,

v.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants,
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has filed his Findings and Recommendations
(“F&R”) (Doc. 36) recommending that defendants Kate Brown and Oregon
Department of Corrections’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) should be granted. This
matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
No objections were 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, the Court

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).
The Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke’s F&R.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the F&R (Doc. 36) in its entirety. Defendants Kate

Brown and Oregon Department of Corrections' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day January, 2021.

____________/s_/_A_n__n_ A__ik__e_n__________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10392796. Public record. Not legal advice.