Logan v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 4/30/2015. (KEK)

FILED
2015 Apr-30 AM 09:16
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
BRANDY L. LOGAN,
Plaintiff
vs.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 5:14-cv-00185-MHH
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 2, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a report and
recommendation, and the parties were given fourteen (14) days in which to object to
magistrate judge’s recommendations. No party has filed objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
When a party makes timely objections to a Report and Recommendation, the district
court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.

Page 1 of 3

When no objections are filed, the district court need not conduct a de novo
review. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also United
States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983)(per curiam), cert. denied, 464
U.S. 1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the magistrate’s findings of fact prohibits
an attack on appeal of the factual findings adopted by the district court except on
grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.”)(internal citation omitted). In Macort
v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit stated:
Most circuits agree that “[i]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a
district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order
to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted); accord
Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999) (“If no
objection or only partial objection is made [to the magistrate judge’s
report], the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for
clear error.”); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.
1989) (noting that the “clearly erroneous” standard is appropriate where
there has been no objection to the magistrate judge’s ruling); Drywall
Tapers & Pointers v. Local 530, 889 F.2d 389, 395 (2d Cir. 1989)
(“Where a magistrate [judge] has been appointed to conduct an
evidentiary hearing, the district court reviews the Report and
Recommendation under the same clearly erroneous standard.”) (citing
Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 875 F.2d 540, 544 (6th Cir. 1989)).
Id. To date, the Eleventh Circuit does not appear to have expressly held that, in the
absence of objections, a district court should review a report and recommendation for
clear error; however, the Court assumes from the discussion in Macort that the
Eleventh Circuit would adopt such a standard if the Court were to address the issue

Page 2 of 3

directly. See generally Shuler v. Infinity Property & Gas, 2013 WL 1346615, at *1
(N.D. Ala. Mar. 29, 2013) (portions of a report and recommendation “to which no
objection is filed are reviewed only for clear error”).
After consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation, the Court ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The
Court also ACCEPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the decision
of the Commissioner be affirmed.
The Court will enter a separate order consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion.
DONE this 30th day of April, 2015.

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3