Renfroe v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Jelderk's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accord ingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderk's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 23 . The Commissioner's decision that Plaintiff is not disabled is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Signed on 9/18/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LARRY A. RENFROE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:15-cv-2219-JE
ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on August 31, 2017. ECF 23. Judge Jelderks recommended that the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) be reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. 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 – ORDER

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended
to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”);
United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that 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 Judge Jelderk’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderk’s
Findings and Recommendation, ECF 23. The Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff is not
disabled is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 18th day of September, 2017.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER