Opinion
Case No. 3:10-cv-950-HU
05-07-2012
DIANA KRIEG, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Tim D. Wilborn Wilborn Law Office, P.C. P.O. Box 2768 Oregon City, Oregon 97045 Attorney for Plaintiff Amanda Marshall United States Attorney Adrian L. Brown Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney's Office District of Oregon Portland, Oregon 97204 David Morado Regional Chief Counsel Seattle, Region X Benjamin J. Groebner Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel M/S 221A Seattle, Washington 98104 Attorneys for Defendant
OPINION AND ORDER
Tim D. Wilborn
Wilborn Law Office, P.C.
P.O. Box 2768
Oregon City, Oregon 97045
Attorney for Plaintiff
Amanda Marshall
United States Attorney
Adrian L. Brown
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
District of Oregon
Portland, Oregon 97204
David Morado
Regional Chief Counsel
Seattle, Region X
Benjamin J. Groebner
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel
M/S 221A
Seattle, Washington 98104
Attorneys for Defendant
SIMON, District Judge.
On April 4, 2012, Magistrate Judge Dennis Hubel filed Findings and a Recommendation ("F & R") that Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 be granted and that Plaintiff be awarded fees in the amount of $4,558.78 (doc. # 25). No objections to the F & R have been filed.
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." 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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 objections having been made, the court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews the F & R for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS Judge Hubel's F & R (doc. # 25). Plaintiff is awarded fees under the EAJA in the amount of $4,558.78.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge