# Marshall v. Oregon Department of Correction

> District Court, D. Oregon · May 11, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393261

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** May 11, 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/10393261

## 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

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

Plaintiff,

v.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
KATE BROWN; STUART YOUNG;
ROGER HAEFER; S. WATSON; DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”)
(doc. 45) on April 22, 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 Mark
Clarke’s F&R (doc. 45).
Dated this 11th day of May, 2021.

___________/s_/_A_n_n_ _A_i_k_e_n_________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393261. Public record. Not legal advice.