Sands v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
25
ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 23 . The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. Signed on 7/27/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DOUGLAS SANDS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00793-SB
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on July 12, 2017. ECF 23. Judge Beckerman recommended that
the Court reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s application for
disability insurance benefits. 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 – OPINION AND 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 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 Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge
Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 23. The Commissioner’s decision is
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 27th day of July, 2017.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?