Gamble v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 5/28/2015. (KEK)

FILED
2015 May-28 AM 09:01
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOY A. GAMBLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No.: 5:14-cv-01462-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 6, 2015, Chief Magistrate Judge John Ott entered a report in which
he recommended that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny Ms.
Gamble’s application for supplemental security income benefits. (Doc. 15). Chief
Magistrate Judge Ott notified the parties that they could file objections to the
recommendation within 14 days of the filing date of his report. (Doc.15, p. 15).
No party has filed objections.
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.
1

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

2

Eleventh Circuit would adopt such a standard if the Court were to address the issue
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.”).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and Magistrate Judge Ott’s
report and recommendation. (Doc. 15). Applying the clearly erroneous standard,
the Court ADOPTS his report and ACCEPTS his recommendation that the Court
affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny Ms. Gamble’s application for benefits.
The Court will enter a separate final judgment consistent with this memorandum
opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this May 28, 2015.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3