Newton v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 3:2011cv01029 - Document 17 (D. Or. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS. Order - The court orders that Judge Acostas findings and recommendations 15 are ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Commissioners decision denying Claimants application for benefits is reversed and remanded for an award of benefits. Signed on 9/28/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

Download PDF
Newton v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION MADELINE NEWTON, Case No. 3:11-01029-AC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATIONS v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. SIMON, District Judge, Magistrate Judge John Acosta issued findings and recommendations in the abovecaptioned case on September 6, 2012. Dkt. 15. Judge Acosta recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and the case be remanded for the immediate calculation and award of benefits. No 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). Page 1, OPINION AND ORDER 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 Acosta’s findings and recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Therefore the court orders that Judge Acosta’s findings and recommendations, Dkt. 15, are ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision denying Claimant’s application for benefits is reversed and remanded for an award of benefits. Dated this 28th day of September, 2012. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge Page 2, OPINION AND ORDER

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.