ORDER

ANN AIKEN, District Judge.

Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 36) on November 28, 2018 recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) be denied. 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.1 Although this relieves me of my obligation to perform a de nova 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 Coffin's order, I find no clear error. Thus, I adopt Magistrate Judge Coffin's F&R (doc. 36) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Petition (doc. 1) is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED, with prejudice. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.