Brown v. Astrue

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE by Judge John C Coughenour; The 25 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. (TF)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

RHONDA P. BROWN,

10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. C12-5233-JCC
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING CASE

12
13
14

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable
Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 25). Because Plaintiff’s objections
to the Report and Recommendation were not timely filed, they are not entitled to de novo review,
and the Court may adopt the Report and Recommendation if it is satisfied there is no clear error
on the face of the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)–(3) and Advisory Committee’s Notes; 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (―Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve
and file written objections to [the] proposed findings and recommendations‖); see, e.g., Gonzales
v. Harris, 514 F. Supp. 991, 994 (E.D. Cal. 1981) (objecting party not entitled to de novo review
of magistrate judge’s recommendations where objections were filed one day late); accord
Escobar v. Reid, 668 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1313 (D. Colo. 2009) (―A party’s failure to serve and file
specific, written objections waives de novo review of the Report and Recommendation by the

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE
PAGE - 1

1 district judge . . . .‖) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)); cf. Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848
2 (9th Cir. 2012) (implying that where, as here, objections are untimely, district court may, but is
3 not required to, ―address[] [the] objections on their merits‖).
4

Even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s objections, it would reject them for the

5 reasons raised in the Commissioner’s response—in particular, because, ―[r]ather than directing
6 this Court to specific errors in the R&R, Plaintiff largely repeats the same arguments the
7 magistrate judge considered and rejected.‖ (Dkt. No. 28 at 2.) Therefore, the Court, having
8 carefully considered Plaintiff’s complaint, the parties’ briefs, the Report and Recommendation,
9 and the balance of the record, and finding no clear error in the Report and Recommendation,
10 does hereby find and ORDER:
11

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25) is ADOPTED;

12

(2) The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED;

13

(3) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

14

(4) The Clerk of the Court is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to

15

Judge Tsuchida.

16
17

DATED this 3rd day of December 2012.

18
19
20

A

21
22
23

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE
PAGE - 2