Summary
finding the contradictory opinions of the non-examining doctors to be insufficient to create a significant factual conflict with the opinions of the treating physicians
Summary of this case from Connie T. v. BerryhillOpinion
Case No. 6:16-cv-01222-JR
03-09-2018
CHRISTOPHER STEVEN WESMAN, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER
:
Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo filed her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") on 2/21/2018 (doc. 16) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 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, I find no clear error.
Thus, I adopt Magistrate Judge Russo's F&R (doc. 16) in its entirety. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for an immediate payment of benefits. This case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2018.
/s/_________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge