Opinion
Case No.: 3:10-cv-170-AC
01-09-2012
RONALD ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Merrill Schneider SCHNEIDER LAW OFFICES Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Amanda Marshall Adrian L. Brown U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE L. Jamala Edwards SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Office of the General Counsel Of Attorneys for Defendant
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Merrill Schneider
SCHNEIDER LAW OFFICES
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
Amanda Marshall
Adrian L. Brown
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
L. Jamala Edwards
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of the General Counsel
Of Attorneys for Defendant
SIMON, District Judge.
On December 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued findings and recommendations (#17) in the above-captioned case. Judge Acosta recommended that the court affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security finding Plaintiff not disabled. No party has filed objections.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the court may "accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." Federal Magistrates Act, 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).
If, however, no objections are filed, the Magistrates Act does not prescribe any standard of review. In such cases, "[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Magistrates Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report[.]" Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States, v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003) (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 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 Magistrate Judge Acosta's findings and recommendations (#17) for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Therefore the court orders that Judge Acosta's findings and recommendations (#17) is ADOPTED.
______________
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge