From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daryl A. v. Kijakazi

United States District Court, District of Oregon
May 31, 2022
2:21-cv-423-SB (D. Or. May. 31, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-423-SB

05-31-2022

DARYL A., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant


ORDER

Michael H. Simon United States District Judge

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on May 13, 2022. Judge Beckerman recommended that this Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner). 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 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 Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 13. The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner finding Plaintiff not disabled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Daryl A. v. Kijakazi

United States District Court, District of Oregon
May 31, 2022
2:21-cv-423-SB (D. Or. May. 31, 2022)
Case details for

Daryl A. v. Kijakazi

Case Details

Full title:DARYL A., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, District of Oregon

Date published: May 31, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-423-SB (D. Or. May. 31, 2022)