Opinion
Case No.: 3:11-00701-PK
09-13-2012
ROGER EASTMAN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMENDATIONS
SIMON, District Judge,
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued findings and recommendations in the above-captioned case on August 21, 2012. Dkt. 19. Judge Papak recommended that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and the case be remanded for further proceedings consistent with his findings and recommendations. Neither 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'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 a standard of review. In such cases, "[t]here is no indication that Congress . . . 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 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'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 Papak's findings and recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Therefore the court orders that Judge Stewart's findings and recommendations, Dkt. #19, is ADOPTED.
_________________
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge