Clark v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
20
ORDER - Adopting Findings and Recommendation 17 . Signed on 12/5/11 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
MONICA G. CLARK, tka MONICA G.
CARILLO,
Case No.: 3:10-cv-0642S-ST
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMENDATIONS
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
SIMON, District Judge,
On October 12,2011, Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued findings and
recommendations (#17) in the above-captioned case. Judge Stewart recommended that the
Commissioner's decision be reversed and the case be remanded for further proceedings
consistent with her findings and recommendations. Neither party has filed objections.
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." Federal Magistrates Act, 28
U.S.C. ยง 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 [mdings 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
ofreview. 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.) (en
bane), eert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003) (the 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 Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) 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 party having made objections, this court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Stewart's findings and recommendations (#17) for
clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Therefore the court orders that
Judge Stewart's findings and recommendations (#17) is ADOPTED.
r~
Dated this _, _ _ day of December, 2011
1I!A~
ichael H. Simon
United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Pg. 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
