Summary
finding that a nurse's conclusion that a plaintiff's "neck and shoulder pain fell within the preexisting condition exclusion" did not violate the regulation, when the nurse thoroughly reviewed the record and did not have to "resolv[e] a difference of opinion between two physicians"
Summary of this case from Meche v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.Opinion
Case No. 3:17-cv-245-PK
07-06-2018
JENNIFER BERGMAN, Plaintiff, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on June 14, 2018. ECF 27. Judge Papak recommended that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF 19) be denied, and that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF 21) be granted. 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 judge'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 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 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 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 27. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss (ECF 19) is DENIED, and Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF 21) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of July, 2018.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge