Eastman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER - The court orders that Judge Stewart's findings and recommendations 19 is ADOPTED. Signed on 9/13/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

ROGER EASTMAN,

Case No.: 3:11-00701-PK

Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMENDATIONS

v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

SIMON, District Judge,
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued findings and recommendations in the abovecaptioned case on August 21, 2012. Dkt. 19. Judge Papak recommended that the Commissioner’s
decision be reversed and the case be remanded for further proceedings consistent with his
findings and recommendations. Neither 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).

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 Papak’s findings and recommendations for clear error
on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Therefore the court orders that Judge
Stewart’s findings and recommendations, Dkt. #19, is ADOPTED.
13th
Dated this _____ day of September, 2012.

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

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS – Pg. 2