Banghart-Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 21 . The Court affirms the Commissioner's final decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits. Signed 1/4/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TINA L. BANGHART-BROWN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 6:15-cv-1883-SI
ORDER

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation in this
case on November 21, 2016. ECF 21. Judge Papak recommended that the Commissioner’s final
decision denying Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits be affirmed and that a final
judgment be prepared.
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).

PAGE 1 – ORDER

Plaintiff timely filed an objection. ECF 23. Plaintiff argues that Judge Papak erred by
finding that: (1) the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision was supported by substantial
evidence despite the post-hearing opinion of Dr. Mia Shreiner; (2) the ALJ did not err in
discounting the opinions of Dr. Anthony Glassman and several mental health providers; and (3)
the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. The
Court has reviewed de novo those portions of Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation to
which Plaintiff has objected, as well as Plaintiff’s objections and Defendant’s response. The
Court agrees with Judge Papak’s reasoning regarding the issues to which Plaintiff objects and
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.”
For those portions of Judge Papak’s 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.

PAGE 2 – ORDER

The Court ADOPTS Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 21. The Court
affirms the Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 4th day of January, 2017.

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

PAGE 3 – ORDER