Scott 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 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, ECF 22 . The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for an immediate calculation of benefits. Signed on 12/15/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LARUNDA LOUISE SCOTT,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 6:16-cv-01596-PK
ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation in this
case on November 17, 2017. ECF 22. Judge Papak recommended that the decision of the
Commissioner finding Plaintiff not disabled and denying Plaintiff’s applications for disability
insurance benefits under Title II and supplemental security income under Tile XVI of the Social
Security Act be reversed and this case be remanded to the Commissioner for an immediate award
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). 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 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 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, ECF 22. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and
REMANDED for an immediate calculation of benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 15th day of December, 2017.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER