Corso v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER - Adopting Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation 18 . Signed on 3/11/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JAMES M. CORSO,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:13-CV-250-AC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on February 10, 2014. Dkt. 18. Judge Acosta recommended that the Commissioner of
Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) decision denying Plaintiff’s application for Disability
Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act be affirmed and that this case be
dismissed. 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

PAGE 1 – ORDER

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 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[.]”); United States. v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (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 Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s
Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 18. The Commissioner’s decision is affirmed and this case
is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 11th day of March 2014.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER