Godeaux v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Armistead's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Armistead's Findings and Recommendation (ECF 22 ). The Court REVERSES the Commissioner's decision and REMANDS this case for further proceedings. Signed on 6/4/2024 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MICHELLE G.,1
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:23-cv-32-AR
ORDER

v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on May 9, 2024. Judge Armistead recommended that this Court reverse and remand
the Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Social
Security Income. 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 objects to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court

1

In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and the initial of the last
name of the non-governmental party in this case.
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 judge’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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review
the magistrate judge’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 Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge
Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF 22). The Court REVERSES the
Commissioner’s decision and REMANDS this case for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 4th day of June, 2024.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER