Krieg v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 19

Opinion and Order - I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation 16 . This case is reversed and remanded for the payment of benefits. Signed on 1/4/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
DIANA KRIEG,
Plaintiff,
Case No. CV 10-950-HU
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
Tim D. Wilborn
P.O. Box 2768
Oregon City, Oregon 97045
Attorney for Plaintiff
Amanda Marshall
United States Attorney
Adrian L. Brown
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Oregon
1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97204
Benjamin J. Groebner
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
M/S 221A
Seattle, Washington 98104
Attorneys for Defendant

Opinion and Order, Page 1

SIMON, District Judge:
On October 31, 2011, Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel filed Findings and
Recommendations in this case (doc. # 16). Judge Hubel recommended that the Commissioner’s
decision be reversed. No objections have been filed.
Under the Federal Magistrates 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).
If, however, no objections are filed, the Magistrates Act does not prescribe any standard
of review. In such cases, “[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Magistrates
Act] 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. 2003)
(en banc) (court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is
made, “but not otherwise”).
Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates 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 Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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 objections having been made, the court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Hubel’s findings and recommendations for clear error

Opinion and Order, Page 2

on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation
(docket # 16). This case is reversed and remanded for the payment of benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 4th day of January, 2012.

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

Opinion and Order, Page 3