Krieg v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 3:2010cv00950 - Document 19 (D. Or. 2012)
Court Description: Opinion and Order - I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation 16 . This case is reversed and remanded for the payment of benefits. Signed on 1/4/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Krieg v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION DIANA KRIEG, Plaintiff, Case No. CV 10-950-HU v. OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Tim D. Wilborn P.O. Box 2768 Oregon City, Oregon 97045 Attorney for Plaintiff Amanda Marshall United States Attorney Adrian L. Brown U.S. Attorney’s Office District of Oregon 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204 Benjamin J. Groebner Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, Washington 98104 Attorneys for Defendant Opinion and Order, Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com SIMON, District Judge: On October 31, 2011, Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel filed Findings and Recommendations in this case (doc. # 16). Judge Hubel recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed. No objections have been filed. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the court may “accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If, however, no objections are filed, the Magistrates Act does not prescribe any standard of review. In such cases, “[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Magistrates Act] intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report[.]” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but not otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.” No objections having been made, the court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Hubel’s findings and recommendations for clear error Opinion and Order, Page 2 on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (docket # 16). This case is reversed and remanded for the payment of benefits. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 4th day of January, 2012. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge Opinion and Order, Page 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
