Daley v. Colvin

Full title: JAMES J. DALEY, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN Acting Commissioner of…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Oct 28, 2014

Case No. 3:13-cv-0861-PK (D. Or. Oct. 28, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 3:13-cv-0861-PK

10-28-2014

JAMES J. DALEY, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on October 6, 2014. Dkt. 24. Judge Papak recommended that The Commissioner's decision be remanded for an award of benefits. 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)(C). 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 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'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 Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 24. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for an award of benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2014.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge