# Brown v. Oregon Department of Transportation

> District Court, D. Oregon · January 21, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10392824

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** January 21, 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/10392824

## 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

GLENN C. BROWN, Case No. 6:20 cv 00829-MK
ORDER
Plaintiff,

v.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; GARY
FARNSWORTH, administrator Region 4,

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) (doc. 19) on January 5, 2021. 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
Kasubhai’s F&R (doc. 19).
Dated this 21st day of January, 2021.

____________/s_/_A_n_n_ _A_i_k_en_________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10392824. Public record. Not legal advice.