Opinion
Case No. 3:15-cv-01379-CL
09-26-2018
KIMBERLY ANN G., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER
:
Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 34) on 8/22/2018 recommending that plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees (doc. 32) should be granted. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
No objections have been timely filed. Although this relieves me of my obligation to perform a de novo review, I retain the obligation to "make an informed, final decision." Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Magistrates Act does not specify a standard of review in cases where no objections are filed. Ray v. Astrue, 2012 WL 1598239, *1 (D. Or. May 7, 2012). Following the recommendation of the Rules Advisory Committee, I review the F&R for "clear error on the face of the record[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (1983) (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 64 n.6 (2002) (stating that, "[i]n the absence of a clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes provide a reliable source of insight into the meaning of a federal rule). Having reviewed the file of this case and Judge Clarke's thorough order, I find no clear error.
Thus, I adopt Magistrate Judge Clarke's F&R (doc. 34) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Motion for Attorney Fees (doc. 32) is granted. Counsel should be awarded $6,248.25 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), the amount left after subtracting the $9,500.00 in EAJA fees that have already been paid to counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of September, 2018.
/s/_________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge
In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party or parties in this case. Where applicable, this opinion uses the same designation for a non-governmental party's immediate family member.