Eastman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 3:2011cv00701 - Document 21 (D. Or. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER - The court orders that Judge Stewart's findings and recommendations 19 is ADOPTED. Signed on 9/13/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Eastman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ROGER EASTMAN, Case No.: 3:11-00701-PK Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATIONS v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. SIMON, District Judge, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued findings and recommendations in the abovecaptioned case on August 21, 2012. Dkt. 19. Judge Papak recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and the case be remanded for further proceedings consistent with his findings and recommendations. Neither party has filed objections. Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“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). Dockets.Justia.com If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe a standard of review. In such cases, “[t]here is no indication that Congress . . . 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 banc), cert. 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 review is not required in the absence of objections, the 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 Papak’s findings and recommendations 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, Dkt. #19, is ADOPTED. 13th Dated this _____ day of September, 2012. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS – Pg. 2
]]>
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.
