Cope v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 27

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderks' Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 23 . Signed 4/30/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CHRISTOPHER COPE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 6:13-cv-0599-JE
ORDER

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on March 30, 2015. Dkt. 23. Judge Jelderks recommended that the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) be reversed and the case remanded for an
award of benefits.
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)(C). 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

The Commissioner timely filed an objection. Dkt. 25. The Commissioner argues the
Judge Jelderks’ erred in finding that the ALJ improperly discredited the testimony of examining
physician Dr. Davis Stenstrom and erred in remanding for an award of benefits instead of for
further proceedings. The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of Judge Jelderk’s Findings
and Recommendation to which the Commissioner has objected, as well as the Commissioner’s
objections, Plaintiff’s response, and the underlying briefing and record in this case. The Court
agrees with Judge Jelderks’ reasoning that the ALJ improperly discredited the opinion of
Dr. Stenstrom. The Court also agrees with Judge Jelderks’ reasoning that the record is fully
developed, a remand for further proceedings would serve no useful purpose, and a remand for an
award of benefits is appropriate. The Court therefore ADOPTS those portions of the Findings
and Recommendation.
For those portions of a magistrate’s findings and recommendations to which neither party
has objected, 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 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 Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the Court review the magistrate’s
recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

PAGE 2 – ORDER

For those portions of Judge Jelderks’ Findings and Recommendation to which neither
party has objected, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and
reviews those matters for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
The Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderks’ Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 23.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 30th day of April, 2015.

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

PAGE 3 – ORDER