Mackey v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Filing
19
ORDER - This Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 17 . The Commissioner's decision is reversed and this case is remanded for an immediate payment of benefits. Signed on 7/8/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JAIME MACKEY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 6:13-cv-0698-PK
ORDER
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation in this
case on June 16, 2014. Dkt. 17. Judge Papak recommended that the decision of the Acting
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) finding Plaintiff not disabled be reversed
and the case remanded to the Social Security Agency for an immediate payment of 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)(C). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the
PAGE 1 – ORDER
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 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. Reyna-Tapia, 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 Papak’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face
of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Papak’s
Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 17. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed and this case
is remanded for an immediate payment of benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 8th day of July, 2014.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 2 – 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?