Hoeft v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
22
ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 19 . Signed on 1/18/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
Case No. 6:16-cv-01928-CL
ORDER
MARY R. HOEFT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
AIKEN, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 19) on
12/15/2017. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. No
objections have been timely filed. Although this relieves me of my obligation to perform a de
nova review, I retain the obligation to "make an informed, final decision." Britt v. Simi Valley
Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, United States
v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). The Magistrates Act does
not specify a standard of review in cases where no objections are filed. Ray v. Astrue, 2012 WL
1598239, *1 (D. Or. May 7, 2012).
Page 1 - ORDER
Following the recommendation of the Rules Advisory
Committee, I review the F&R for "clear error on the face of the record[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee's note (1983) (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d
196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Vann, 535 U.S. 55, 64 n.6 (2002) (stating
that, "[i]n the absence of a clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes provide a
reliable source of insight into the meaning of' a federal rule). Having reviewed the file of this
case, I find no clear error.
Accordingly, I adopt Judge Clarke's F&R (doc. 19) in its entirety. Plaintiffs action is
dismissed, with prejudice.
Dated this~ day of January 2018.
flcl4~ r2..LI\
J
Ann Aiken
~
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?